Science-Based Medicine

Nov 13 2012

Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter

603 responses so far

603 Responses to “Fan Mail from an ASEA Supporter”

1. # ZenMonkeyon 13 Nov 2012 at 3:44 am

   “vaccine grows on cancer cells and GMO cells” —–> fatal measles outbreaks and California’s Prop 37.

   Sisyphus indeed. But hey, I got my flu shot today.

2. # kathyon 13 Nov 2012 at 4:22 am

   I’m not a psychologist, Dr Hall, but the jumbled writing and paranoia makes me wonder if perhaps something has gone wrong with her mentally since her student days. In which case you would indeed be wasting your time and effort using reason with her.

   “She is an educated woman, with a diploma in engineering.” Anecdote coming down the line – warning! I had a contemporary at university, a bright sensible good-natured guy who qualified in virology. Some 12 years later I met up with him again and he tried to get me involved with an anti-Catholic group he wanted to start. He was sure that the Catholic church was trying to take over the world, rhubarb, rhubarb.

   The weird things he said and the even weirder look in his eye were just not the nice young man I used to know when we were both university students with all our lives before us. Changes happen to people, and they are sometimes very sad changes indeed.

3. # nybgruson 13 Nov 2012 at 6:42 am

   I am hard pressed to believe this person graduated with a degree in engineering. But then again, as Kathy pointed out things do happen.

   In fact, I am willing to give the idea a chance (sadly) because just this past weekend I had an… interesting… experience.

   I was out at a local bar listening to some live music with friends and one of my classmates brings in her significant other (whom is, apparently, new and nobody has met). They showed up late (i.e. a few cocktails into the evening) and we all started mingling. Mr. New Boyfriend and I start chatting and through a tangent I cannot recall started talking about science and… alternative medicine. I won’t bore with the details, but suffice it to say he continually and vehemently argued using the fallacies of antiquity, authority, and naturalism. I was unbudging in my critique of this and then he decided to drop the bomb on me. He informed me that he, yes he, was a scientist and therefore he knew what he was talking about. He clarified that he was a physical oceanographer and that he most certainly knew how to do science. A little more claim that placebo effect is legit, huge, and alters objective outcomes, trying to convince me acupuncture was legit even though he couldn’t answer a single question about it except to say “it works.”* I ended the conversation by saying that I’m sure he operated well in his little niche, but he most certainly did not know the fundamentals of doing good science.

   I found out a couple of days later that he ended up making the classmate cry by going off and trying to pick up on some other girl for a while and then still ended up going out with the group later that evening (after I had gone home… they stayed out till 5am and I was tired after a week of pediatric surgery).

   So not only a self professed scientist who really didn’t know the fundamentals of the scientific method, argued without any reading, let alone understanding of the relevant evidence, but was a douchebag to my classmate on top of it all. I can’t imagine a scenario that would get under my skin more.

   *When I cited a sytematic review of reviews from the journal Pain noting that there was no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of pain, his response was “well, it works for other stuff!” “What stuff?” I ask. His response? That I was amazingly arrogant and how dare I write off an entire healing modality that has worked so well for so many people for so long. And yes, I cite systematic reviews of reviews when moderately intoxicated. It’s how I roll. lol.

4. # rorkon 13 Nov 2012 at 8:41 am

   I wasn’t really educated in school as a scientist (though I’ve seen pretty much chem, physics, anthro, philosophy, logic), but statistics does teach you about learning, and the 50 ways to fool yourself and others. I note in some PhD’s (and MDs) an astonishing lack of scientific or critical thinking and ask, in what venues are they actually supposed to learn that? Being drilled in what is true (not by proof either), even forever, may not provide much armor against error. We really might need classes about how to spot bullsh|t. This blog helps.

   Considering that makes me less shocked that many other people have serious problems with clear thinking. Nobody really showed them how, and they don’t read any serious things.

   To be fair: Math or Stat folks around me seem more likely to have religion than the biologists. I have lots of speculation I won’t bother you with, likely none of it original.

5. # rorkon 13 Nov 2012 at 9:18 am

   Oh, I have a depressing example to relate. Pertussis in a recent article in my local rag. Two commenters noted that since in some example town 75% of infected people had been vaccinated (at some point, perhaps decades ago, or perhaps young and not fully vaxed yet, but wait for the real whopper), that common sense showed being vaxed made you 3 times more likely to acquire the infection. Clearly something in the vax helps you get the disease. I recommend it as a teachable moment about bad math for what, our 7th graders?

   Underlying this digbatry might be Mike Adams, trying his best to help you make that error. Apr 4 2012 – easy to see via web search, but I’m not recommending it.

6. # mousethatroaredon 13 Nov 2012 at 9:30 am

   Are we sure that English is the e-mailer’s first language? It’s just that the language sounds awkward…like someone who’s translating.

   I’m sure we all get drawn in by folks like this. But I do think that it’s possible to change people’s minds. I feel like I have learned alot from this site and that it’s because some regulars here were willing to treat me decently and explain their thoughts rather than dismiss me as a incorrigible altie*.

   So while it might seem like Sisyphus, maybe not completely. Although one would definitely needs a hearty dose of Camus to get through.

   *which I am in some ways, particularly grammatically and phonetically

7. # tgobbion 13 Nov 2012 at 10:07 am

   This series of exchanges reminds me of a stunt I pulled years ago. It concerned (no surprise) a chiropractic discussion group that I joined as a troll using a fake Hungarian name and writing as if I’m not originally an English speaker. At no time did I flat out claim to be a DC but I hinted that, at the very least, I was familiar with the field. In my posts I admonished the participants in the group (all true-believer, subluxation-based types) against making their extreme claims known to the general public because of a potential public relations disaster. I was amazed at the enthusiastic way that they continued the dialogue with me and the passion with which they defended their views. My veracity was never questioned.

   One or two of the DCs insulted my assumed unfamiliarity with the language, but by and large the exchange, which must have lasted a week, was taken very seriously. I only wish I had saved the posts for future reference.

   Harriet, it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that your correspondent is playing fast and loose with you the way I did with the chiropractors.

8. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 13 Nov 2012 at 10:50 am

   Nybgrus, it sounds like your bar “friend” wasn’t aware of the Hawthorne effect. If you ever see him again (my sympathies if you do) ask him if waves blush.*

   Training in one field of science leaves you woefully unprepared to enter a second field.

   *In university, I encountered a succinct summary of the Hawthorne effect as “bacteria don’t blush”; the Hawthorne effect is an acknowledgement of the fact that merely observing humans changes their behaviour.

9. # windrivenon 13 Nov 2012 at 10:51 am

   “she is a college graduate”

   Apparently a college degree ain’t what it used to be.

   And never forget: 50% of people are dumber than the average guy.

   The several stories relating conflicts with ‘scientists’ is depressing. How is it that the same organ that in one skull divines the basic framework of evolution, in another argues that homeopathy is anything more than magic water? Is this sort of aggressive ignorance genetic? taught? or is it the result of complete intellectual laziness?

10. # elburtoon 13 Nov 2012 at 11:02 am

    What kind of university allows someone to even enrol
    (never mind graduate) with such an appalling grasp of language?

    You’d fail Key Stage 2 with those “skills”, here in Blighty. The KS2 SATs occur at age 11, and the language component tests the student’s spelling, grammar and punctuation. The contents of those emails would result in a big, fat fail.

    I’m imploring FSM to reveal a troll, by using some noodly sleuthing. I can’t bear the thought of the author being any sort of graduate.

11. # siwhyatton 13 Nov 2012 at 11:34 am

    I think that possibly some of my plants are actually slightly more intelligent than the author of those emails…

    In all seriousness however, I think a lack of both grammar and critical thinking skills are the norm nowadays rather than the exception!

    It is for this reason that there is such a huge market for products such as ASEA and the myriad of other snake oil type products out there.

    One has to consider that if the emails are genuine, at least they did at least think to (almost) question the claims by contacting you/reading your original post (even if they refused to listen to any of your answers).

    Think on all the huge numbers of ASEA customers that just watch the video unquestioningly and guzzle down the tablets!

    NB Elburto – I’m also from Blighty, graduated Uni in 2001, and I can tell you there were plenty of my contemporaries that had little grasp of the English Language!

12. # UncleHooton 13 Nov 2012 at 12:00 pm

    “plants are very intelligent” http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071

13. # Harriet Hallon 13 Nov 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Of course I have no way of knowing that the e-mails are “genuine,” but they are typical of many, many other exchanges I have had, and I see no reason to doubt them. My correspondent listed her name, occupation, and place of employment and Googling that organization verified that such a person exists.

14. # windrivenon 13 Nov 2012 at 12:21 pm

    A quick trip to the ASEA homepage suggests that Dr. Hall’s correspondent might have a motive other than scientific interest. A whole series of submenus are dedicated to the ‘network marketing’ aspects of the product. Could it be that the young lady is an ASEA distributor? This begs the question: why is an engineer spending her time hawking snake oil to the rubes? The US has a serious deficit of qualified engineers. Maybe I’ve answered my own question.

15. # Calli Arcaleon 13 Nov 2012 at 12:27 pm

    As an engineer myself, I can completely believe this woman graduated with a degree in engineering. We aren’t necessarily great skeptics, and we tend to have an inordinate affinity for personal fiddling over rigorous scientific exercise, and tend to regard the outcome as positive as long as the thing appears to work; understanding why it works is good, of course, but not as important and will often get skipped so that we can get on to the next cool design project.

    I have met engineers into all sorts of woo, fundamentalist Christianity, crazy political conspiracy theories, the works. Most of us are more literate than this individual appears to be, but all that said, the stereotype of engineers who stink at English class is not entirely unearned. I’m an engineer with an English degree, but I’m the exception, not the rule.

    One thing that struck me was her insistence on wanting to know where Dr Hall works — even after Dr Hall indicated that she is retired, and therefore does not work. Reading comprehension is clearly not her strong suit. She’s the sort who wants to get on in there and do. I doubt she’s been an especially successful engineer, though she may have found a niche somewhere and fitted in there long enough to be secure.

16. # windrivenon 13 Nov 2012 at 12:32 pm

    @WLU

    “Training in one field of science leaves you woefully unprepared to enter a second field.”

    But the science part should precede the specialization. Science is a philosophy and a series of methods that can be applied to a number of fields. My area is physics. That doesn’t prepare me to enter virology. But it does prepare me to begin to learn about virology within a scientific framework.

    How can someone understand, say, chemistry in a truly scientific way and yet argue that reiki or homeopathy deserves serious attention?

17. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 13 Nov 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Sure, science is philosophy. I took courses on epistemology and methodology. But they were far, far, far outweighed by the number of courses I took on specific topics. The emphasis on knowing specific facts is far greater than knowing the process to establish those facts. And within a field, knowledge of those facts is important. Knowing enough science to approach virology in a structured way isn’t the same thing as knowing facts about specific species of viruses and therefore whether vaccination will work, whether a disease has an animal reservoir that precludes smallpox-style elimination or the specific fatality rates associated. While anyone can criticize lacking a control group, that’s nowhere near the level of knowledge required to know if an experimental protocol should involve sprague-dewey mice versus naked mole rats.

    Physics might actually leave you worse off when you’re talking about medicine, because in phyics you generally don’t have to consider human factors like placebo effects or observation bias – which could give you the impression that medicine is easy and you don’t need randomized trials. I’m not saying it is, but mastery of one field doesn’t automatically give an advantage in another. Even skeptical thinking, which isn’t taught but rather accumulated, probably doesn’t help in all fields – just the woo-prone ones. Maybe, I can’t say for sure.

18. # Paul Ingrahamon 13 Nov 2012 at 1:13 pm

    I certainly have no doubt the correspondence was genuine and earnest. My own skeptical articles also provoke a lot of strange email, and clearly one side of the bell curve is over-represented. People with every kind of psychological problem are out there, and not only do they write email, they write more of it (and SHOUTIER!) than anyone else. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: the least informed people will usually be the most obnoxious.

    I’ve always been particularly bemused by the hate mail I get about Epsom salts. I never dreamed anyone could get so unhinged about salt baths!

19. # UncleHooton 13 Nov 2012 at 1:33 pm

    To be fair, my best guess is that this person was communicating via their smart phone. Many people do not hold themselves to the same standard of professional communication when typing into their phones, perhaps because they are more rushed. I’m not suggesting that it excuses her spelling and grammatical errors, but it may help explain them.

    Nevertheless, like Calli states above, I know many engineers with horrible written communication skills. In fact, I would say that excellent communication skills are often the exception, rather than the rule. In my experience, the problem seems to be getting worse with each new year of college graduates.

    Regardless, I’m not entirely sure I understand the purpose of this post. Was it simply to get a few laughs at her expense? Or is this more of a case-study? Granted, it certainly points to many logical fallacies, not to mention that she seemed less interested in asking Dr. Hall’s opinion, than actually hoping she would agree. If the point was that educated people sometimes believe off-the-wall claims, well, I don’t think that’s news.

20. # windrivenon 13 Nov 2012 at 2:12 pm

    @WLU

    I think I may not have expressed myself well. I do not at all disagree with your assertion. My point was that someone trained in any science should at least have the structural framework on which to hang information about another field outside their own expertise. That is to say that as a physicist I would approach virology from a perspective that did not begin with ‘evil humors.’ All of this vis-a-vis correspondents who self identify as scientists but whose every assertion betrays their lack of scientific patterns of thought.

21. # Quillon 13 Nov 2012 at 2:33 pm

    WLU noted: “The emphasis on knowing specific facts is far greater than knowing the process to establish those facts.”

    This has been a problem in education for years but seems especially problematic in the sciences, where the process is in some ways more important than any set of facts since some of the facts tend to change while the basic process does not. So if the way of knowing & process isn’t fully understood then it follows all sorts of mischief can creep in and someone with an engineering degree can find faith in magical salt water.

22. # daughternumberthreeon 13 Nov 2012 at 2:39 pm

    I am happy to report that Dr. Hall’s original post on ASEA comes up second on a Google search of the term.

23. # BillyJoeon 13 Nov 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Here is a page from the website of a local medical practitioner.

    http://www.healthwiseinstitute.com.au/skeptics

    This person spent six years in medical school!
    Obviously, his medical schooling taught him facts rather than the process towards those facts (thanks WLU)
    I suspect all medical schools are the same which is why SBM is having so much trouble getting heard.

24. # Harriet Hallon 13 Nov 2012 at 3:34 pm

    @UncleHoot,

    “I’m not entirely sure I understand the purpose of this post.”

    The primary purpose of this post is explained in its first paragraph.
    Another purpose was to stimulate a discussion, which it has done.
    Another purpose was therapeutic – venting my frustrations by writing rather than tearing my hair out.

25. # Aliaon 13 Nov 2012 at 3:41 pm

    What bothers me the most is her mention of Grabovoi, the “miracle worker of Beslan”. One of very few people I treat with utter contempt and I would gladly spit in the face, if I only had the chance. And I’m basically gentle and mild-mannered.

26. # MedsVsTherapyon 13 Nov 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Regarding Act V: typical flaws: My fav is this: the intervention works on everything, and marketing is based on appealing to a broad audience concerning astounding efficacy for a broad range of symproms and conditions.

27. # LovleAnjelon 13 Nov 2012 at 5:00 pm

    “I am using my body to tell me what is good for me or my cat, as they can be trusted.”

    She’s as good a cat owner as she is a critical thinker.

28. # Amaltheaon 13 Nov 2012 at 6:44 pm

    This raises two more questions in my mind.
    I was told many years ago by a physician that if I had a very mild infection at the base of my toenail that soaking my foot in warm water with hydrogen peroxide and Epsom salts would help. Now and then I’ve ended up doing just that and it seemed to work.
    1:Now I’m wondering if it was just the peroxide which helped?
    2:Are the Epsom salts a bad idea for me as I have an acquired allergy to Sulfa drugs?

29. # Ahrimanon 13 Nov 2012 at 8:19 pm

    I went to a school for undergraduate that was top-notch for engineers, and we non-engineering folk (I majored in economics) had to take some pretty tough basic science courses to complete our freshman requirements. The engineering students, on the other hand, took what we dubbed “English for Engineers.” The joke was that the aim of the course was to ensure they could write a complete sentence by the end of the semester. Engineering students were notoriously terrible writers, as brilliant as some might have been at their science, math, and engineering coursework. I found it really unfair that I was thrown into their “weed out” courses while they got to take the equivalent of “Rocks for Jocks” for their humanities requirements. But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and I am glad for the push I got in the rigorous science courses now.

    In any case, since we are venting, I also wanted to add that I have a friend who is a epidemiologist at a prestigious institution and is into acupuncture. She insists that if science doesn’t have an answer to a personal medical problem, then your “higher self”/ personal experience is your best and truest teacher. She in no way sees the contradiction in steering people away from poorly designed studies or ones in dubious journals on the one hand, and giving the advice to do “whatever works for you” on the other. I find it irritating and odd. And I don’t care for the fact that her altie or on-the-fence friends take this sort of talk from her as legitimizing (or at least legitimizing the tolerance of) any number of pseudoscientific claims.

30. # ConspicuousCarlon 13 Nov 2012 at 8:20 pm

    ASEA is a mixture of 16 chemically recombined products of salt and water

    Wow, 16 different ways to combine only 2 ingredients? ASEA is the Taco Bell of medicine.

31. # Janeton 13 Nov 2012 at 10:05 pm

    I have read some part of this–the part after the link to the video in Act 4–before, but cannot for the life of me think where, except that it must be here, ORAC, or possibly recently on the long comments section I’ve mentioned a couple of times recently that was in response to the Mayor of Portland’s post about the newly decided fluoridation of Portland’s water. There were a lot of very grammar-challenged people in those comments.

    My mother is a high school graduate (it took her an extra year), has never done any work requiring writing skills, is science-illiterate, and believes dinosaurs walked the earth with people (and that men have one less rib than women!), but I have to credit her for being able to write a coherent paragraph or two with few or no spelling or grammar mistakes.

    I wrote to you, Dr. Hall, the other day and tried to keep it brief and to the point, feeling that you must be busy and not in need of a lot of email. You graciously replied and I was pleased and appreciative. I am stunned to think that you get mail such as the example you have presented here on a regular basis. Although I don’t know anyone who writes quite this badly, I have known a lot of people who THINK (not yelling, just don’t know how to do italics) the same way–several of them are nurses and a couple are MD’s.

32. # UncleHooton 13 Nov 2012 at 10:58 pm

    @Harriet Hall

    “Purpose” was probably a poorly chosen word. “Motivation” may have been a better choice, but it’s irrelevant. We all have our motivations, so if it’s therapeutic, well, that’s good enough for me. I think if everyone is honest, this site is a type of therapy for like-minded individuals. Yes, there are exceptions…

    Regarding the OP, we all want shortcuts. I’ve always told people that losing weight is the easiest thing in the world to do. You simply burn more calories than you consume. It could not be simpler. Unfortunately, most of us have a really difficult time with that. Taking a pill or eating acai berries is tempting. We want those solutions to work so badly that we allow ourselves to be blinded.

    Like the Epsom salts that Paul Ingraham noted (very interesting!), I often wonder how often bad science or lack of science exists in modern medicine. I recently read a medical paper where the author recognized that experimental modelling appeared to disprove his hypothesis, but instead of accepting the results, or perhaps modifying his hypothesis, he made the analogy to science’s former inability to explain insect flight. Do I even need to go further with that? Indeed, he uses that analogy as part of his standard presentation. (I can cite that, but I’m drifting OT already.)

    Personally, and yes I’m being honest, I have yet to notice the positive effects of aspirin on pain. Sometimes I take aspirin and feel better, other times I don’t take aspirin, and I still feel better. Most of the time, I don’t truly notice a difference, even though I believe that it works. Good luck getting the placebo effect to work on me…

33. # Lytrigianon 13 Nov 2012 at 11:53 pm

    What the hell is a “redox signaling molecule”?

34. # Amaltheaon 14 Nov 2012 at 12:17 am

    Sounds like many of you here will not be surprised at my example of this sort of behavior. My mother is a retired RN who is what I’ve come to think of as a “Card carrying member of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Cult”. For someone who’s mind is a logical and cause-and-effect oriented as mine this is very distressing and frustrating.

35. # Sialison 14 Nov 2012 at 9:17 am

    I inquired about obtaining a sample of ASEA water after a local physician began holding seminars advertising it treat a variety of chronically illnesses. The physician is advising patients with serious illnesses such as RA or Type I Diabetes to stop taking all of their prescription medications, as all pharmaceuticals are “toxic”. Instead, he suggests they purchase ASEA water from him, and undergo other treatments with supplements and some bizarre hocus pocus involving dangling objects over the patients head. His very expensive ASEA water treatments got my attention, so I wrote the company requesting a free sample. A product sample costs a whopping $30. Forget that! ASEA was kind enough to offer me the following statement of assurance as to their products efficacy.

    There is almost nothing on earth as safe for the body as ASEA. It’s safer than tap water, spring water, or alkaline water. More than $5 million has been spent to test ASEA and its foundational technology, and all results show that ASEA is safe to all tissues, organs, and systems of the body. These studies tested for dozens of adverse effects, including endotoxicity, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, reverse mutation, chromosomal aberration, and acute toxicity.

    This rigorous testing of a finished product is something unheard of in the world of dietary supplements. Why? Because it’s expensive! Who wants to spend $5 million or more in safety studies?

    ASEA does.

    We want you to know that every bottle, every serving, and every sip of ASEA brings you powerful benefits while remaining completely safe to your body.

    One would think that if they had spent over $5 million dollars to test their product, they would be willing to publish their findings.

36. # ConspicuousCarlon 14 Nov 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Sounds like they invented the labor theory of evidence.

37. # Robbon 14 Nov 2012 at 5:06 pm

    I find it odd that a company would claim to spend $5 million on testing water but then balk at giving out free samples of it and try to charge $30 (unless that’s part of their plan to recoup research costs). That’s some expensive water and salt!

    “I am happy to report that Dr. Hall’s original post on ASEA comes up second on a Google search of the term.”

    Not to knock Dr. Hall, but this is because Google targets your search/web habits and tailors results accordingly. Someone who’d never visited SBM would not see her post at #2.

38. # ConspicuousCarlon 14 Nov 2012 at 8:26 pm

    “this is because Google targets your search/
    web habits and tailors results accordingly. ”

    I googled for ASEA with IE and Firefox (neither of which I ever use), and it still comes up #2.

    I also did it from my phone with two newly-installed browsers I have never used (Dolphin Mini and TextOnly, which can’t access my Opera history or Google account), and those also result in Hall’s article being the second result.

39. # Sialison 15 Nov 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Well, well, lookey what we have here…

    I didn’t just receive the one email from ASEA, but several. One of them was from an individual named Brandon. Brandon was kind enough to sign the email with his full name and address. I cross-referenced his address and found myself at a river outfitter’s business in Texas. Cross reference them, and a nice long list of charges by the Texas Attorney General’s office comes up. Apparently, Brandon has a history of misleading advertising.

    I hope the Attorney General’s office is going after ASEA, the parent company, as well. It seems this group of people, which includes Brandon, has a history of deceptive advertising. In October 2011, they had the following judgment and permanent injunction against them by the State of Texas. It seems like Texas needs to open another case against these people.

    https://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2011/102111olson_afj.pdf

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EQlAfDoShvUJ:www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2010/120610olson_pop.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPyuBAdROdwOPzlXBT5kfd7bManYoHC8pkDiD1yiW23LkzGfV8wjr6FJjqR2PG0GJjnVRl4D-yuuEZct7m9VkRHQBkTaYStu7vKHjdgcFowZlleGZ8EX7fGofnjoSBGrvK33wy&sig=AHIEtbRFpSdl3XuhhT3VAJlTSHRFvAmIag

    The following is is Brandon’s misleading email. The email was subject “Heal Yourself Natutally with ASEA. My Story…”, from RedoxHealth.net “brandonolson@teamasea.com”

    ASEA is Native to the Body, which means it is already in your body. The problem is, your body makes less and less Redox Signaling Molecules the older you get. In a bottle of Asea are trillions of stable Redox Signaling Molecules, native to the body. These molecules are responsible for triggering healing at a cellular level. If you want a healthy heart, you need healthy heart cells, if you want healty lungs, you need healthy lung cells, etc.. This is why it works for everyone!

    Here is my Story.
    My Name is Brandon Olson, Im a lifetime asthma sufferer. I have relied on an inhaler to control asthma attacks for my entire life. I went thru at least one inhaler per month, 1-2 doses per day. Normal activities would trigger an attack. (Cold Weather, Dust, Jogging for even short periods, Smoke, cut grass, and the list goes on…) After using the ASEA product, I no longer need the inhaler. I have my life back. I really noticed a difference while remodeling our house. I installed sheet rock and worked in extremely dusty conditions for hours. Not only did I not have an asthma attack, but I noticed that I had ZERO muscle soreness the following day. ASEA has changed my life. It can change yours too.

    Asea is not designed specifically for asthma. It is designed for healing at a cellular level. No matter what your condition, you need healthy cells to begin to feel better. Thats what Asea does!

    Asea has a 100% money back guarantee if you are dissatisfied for any reason.

    Watch the videos on our site to see testimonials of regular people, not paid for their review of what Asea does for them.

    Thanks

    Brandon Olson
    http://www.BrandonOlson.net

    664 S Seguin Ave, 78130, new braunfels, TX 78130, USA

40. # jack-andersonon 15 Nov 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Finding the posts on the ASEA product very interesting dialogue at a level of Medical and Chemistry far exceeding my own. As an ASEA user I am quite interested in thoughts and or understanding if there is potential that this product would be degrading or dangerous to my health even though I am impressed with its impact on my Athletic performance and health?

41. # nybgruson 16 Nov 2012 at 2:00 am

    @jack-anderson:

    It certainly won’t be detrimental to your health since it is nothing but salt water. However, it won’t actually help anything at all.

    You mention atheltic performance. Subjective analysis can be deceptive. When I was first learning how to train for serious endurance cycling I recall performing quite well. Then I learned more and found out it would be beneficial to increase my cadence (the RPM’s at which I spun my legs to crank the wheels). My “natural” cadence was around 65RPM. I forced myself to go up to 100RPM which is what the top atheletes did (and the science supported). I felt extremely tired doing this and it seemed like so much more effort. If I only had myself to go by, I would have stopped doing it and returned to what seemed more efficient and effective (my 60RPM). However, I had a very nice GPS enabled cycle computer which gave me unequivocal data that despite feeling like I was doing less and putting in more effort, I was, in fact, sustaining a higher average speed and was able to do so for longer. After about 4-500 miles of cycling this way, it no longer felt like more effort and now I do the higher cadence without thinking about it. But I had to learn the science and force myself to do it before hand. Having a convenient way to objectively verify the results was certainly critical to my acceptance of this amazingly counterintuitive to my experience phenomenon.

42. # jack-andersonon 16 Nov 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Thanks, (Nybgrus) I really appreciate the insight as I also have been an active athlete for some time. I train with an Eco-Endurance Challenge team of 10 athletes of whom I have the greatest respect in their abilities to obtain qualitative results. Based on my results using the ASEA product I worked with the team trainer to implement product trials with the team of 10. The teams high cyclical stress level does not afford the risk of subjective analysis when adding a new supplement to their training regimen. Please do not take this in a litigious way as I utilize the expertise of the SBM blog members to understand the potential of ASEA as “salt water” to make a significant impact on athletic performance or degrading to health and performance. Is the contrasting statement “salt water has the potential to make a positive impact on athletic performance” a paradox? I do not see how this could be possible, but the subjective results prove otherwise.

43. # Harriet Hallon 16 Nov 2012 at 10:20 pm

    @jack-anderson,

    You speak of “product trials.” Are they placebo-controlled?
    “Salt water has the potential to make a positive impact on athletic performance” Yes, of course it does, because athletic performance varies with effort, suggestion, and expectation. Give an athlete any kind of placebo and tell him it will make him perform better, and his performance will improve. It will also improve with lucky underwear or a rabbit’s foot. At least ASEA spares poor little bunnies.

44. # ConspicuousCarlon 16 Nov 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Harriet Hall on 16 Nov 2012 at 10:20 pm

    At least ASEA spares poor little bunnies.

    Non sequitur, Dr. Hall; the absence of dead rabbits in the end product does not necessarily mean that the rabbits are being spared. For all we know, the freaks over at ASEA could be bottling water and then murdering rabbits on their lunch break for no reason.

45. # jack-andersonon 17 Nov 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Thank you Dr. Hall for your reply;
    Nybgrus wrote “…..since it is nothing but salt water. However, it actually won’t help anything at all”
    Your insight opposes that of Nybgrus as you wrote “salt water has the potential to make a positive impact on athletic performance.” With the Nybgrus subjective statements and our team’s quantitative data, it would be a paradox. Your insight leads me to believe it is not a paradox, as your insight subjective, qualitative or quantitative agrees in such that ASEA as salt water could indeed have a positive impact on athletic performance. I shall continue with some of the details of the product trials as you requested performed by the team of 10. I must first agree with Nybgrus to the point that my personal trials of the product would be considered subjective as they were simply on-off cycles of the product with quantitative data but no placebo side by side comparison and perhaps I did have my “lucky underwear?” Based on my results using the ASEA product I worked with the team trainer to conduct 4 (on-off cycles) with 21 day wash out intervals between equally designed endurance sets for the group of 10. Each load cycle was 14 days with 5 athletes loading ASEA and 5 athletes loading a Placebo with the reverse of athletes on the next loading cycle. The same training set at the end of the 14 day load cycle was used to collect the quantitative data as well as some qualitative recovery scale ratings which are a continual standard practice for the team to gauge potential of chronic stress. At the end of the four split-group cycles; two cycles were added with all 10 on placebo and then all 10 on the ASEA.
    It is also standard practice after the endurance set (always an external environment) all blood and urine markers were collected and then an (internal environment) controlled burn out session followed with no fueling or supplementation. This protocol by the team trainer is not new and has been used for several years to define performance results of many new products selected as potential candidates for the team’s training regimen. The quantitative data (13 markers) reflected significant positive (above base line linear analysis) results in use of ASEA and minor or slight degradation below the performance base line using the placebo. Just to clear up the “rabbit’s foot” issue, results were not skewed by “lucky rabbit’s feet” as the athletes endurance set was 8 hours running on the trail with 13 to 18 pound packs depending on gender. Pretty certain none were carrying rabbit’s feet as packs are check carefully before each training session. Thoughts on these performance levels
    as ASEA did not compare to the placebo?

46. # The Daveon 17 Nov 2012 at 2:54 pm

    She didn’t literally mean carrying a rabbit’s foot. She was describing more of a phenomenon. Part of it is self-fulfilling prophecy. Kind of like Dumbo’s magic feather. If you *think* something will work, it will potentially increase your confidence in your own abilities and you will be able to squeak out just a little extra effort. I would be willing to bet that if you gave your athletes regular water and told them it was ASEA, they would experience just as much benefit as the actual ASEA, but would save yourself a lot of money.

47. # Harriet Hallon 17 Nov 2012 at 3:32 pm

    @jack-anderson,

    “Thoughts on these performance levels as ASEA did not compare to the placebo?”

    I’m not going to waste any thoughts on these results until they are published in a peer-reviewed journal with sufficient details to evaluate properly. I think it is far more likely that the study results are somehow flawed than that salt water has objective effects on performance or that ASEA contains 16 chemically combined perfectly balanced redox signaling molecules.

48. # jack-andersonon 17 Nov 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Thanks to Dr. Hall for her reply:
    Dr. Hall’s statement of “….waste any thoughts” as she prefers to await a published peer-reviewed journal is fair and shall be accepted as “no-comment” under the condition her Medical advice far exceeds my own perspicacity on peer reviews. However the fact that she thinks the study results are “somehow flawed” is opinion and subjective in which my own knowledge and review of the study transcends the topic. The conditions and objectives for which the team study was designed would not administer to a published peer-review as confidentiality and competitive advantage of the team would surmount. I regress to my original query for the SBM alliance of “ASEA as salt water” with potential impact to my health within the context of 2.2mg of salt water per day?

    An additional inquiry for “The Dave” & “Nybgrus”
    Not quite sure the context of your statement? “….more of a phenomenon. Part of it is self-fulfilling prophecy. Kind of like Dumbo’s magic feather.” I struggle with your contention as verity; “The Dave” is willing to bet that a “phenomenon” is justification for a team of Ten Highly Trained Professional athletes competing at an extremely high level of endurance will stand at the start of a Seven-Day Adventure Race believing not only will they finish but they will exceed their own expectations because they were told a glass of water would help them? If the bet was raised to include two Olympic teams currently utilizing the product would you “call”, “raise” or “fold”. This “phenomenon” you speak of; has it been studied and results published in a peer-reviewed journal? Help me to understand.

49. # pmoranon 17 Nov 2012 at 11:31 pm

    jack_anderson: I regress to my original query for the SBM alliance of “ASEA as salt water” with potential impact to my health within the context of 2.2mg of salt water per day

    That would be neither here nor there, allowing for the body’s ability to adjust to an extremely wide range of NaCl intake e.g. 500mgm to 9000mgm.

    If, however the company’s claims are correct, and the product contains “signalling molecules” with a wide range of important metabolic effects, then it is perhaps about as equally likely that long term use would be harmful as beneficial.

    The company has certainly not established any rationale for interferring with the body’s redox system long term. The fact they don’t seem to have considered this before marketing the product is worrying.

    So, FWIW, I share the view of others — it looks dodgy.

50. # The Daveon 18 Nov 2012 at 10:06 am

    “has it been studied and results published in a peer-reviewed journal? Help me to understand.”

    It has been studied. I learned about it along with other cognitive biases while working on my bachelor’s in psychology.

    Self fulfilling prophecy is when you think something is true, so you non-consciously cause it to come true. Kind of like an extension of the placebo effect. Wikipedia has a good article on it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy

    In addition to self fulfilling prophecy, Confirmation Bias might play a role in your observed results as well.
    Confirmation Bias is remembering only the positive hits and forgetting the negative ones, making you think that something is working, even if its not. The is exactly why Testimonials from sCAM websites/providers are worthless. Not only is it a simple forgetting of the times it doesn’t work, they deliberately filter out any negative reviews/testimonials so you only see the positive ones. That is why the maxim “the plural of anecdote is not data” holds true. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

51. # Harriet Hallon 18 Nov 2012 at 12:13 pm

    @jack-anderson,

    “However the fact that she thinks the study results are “somehow flawed” is opinion and subjective in which my own knowledge and review of the study transcends the topic.”

    No, the fact that I think it is likely that the study results are “somehow flawed” is not just subjective opinion. It is an informed judgment based on the established fact that half of all published studies are wrong, and that studies of improbable treatments are even more likely to be wrong, and on a knowledge of all the things that can go wrong in studies and an extensive knowledge of the foibles of human psychology. And based on a knowledge of basic science and physiology.

    Listen to what you are saying: “I have evidence, but it’s a secret.”
    Listen to the double standard: you wouldn’t accept that from a pharmaceutical company.

    Here’s a hypothetical: you do a similar study and get similar results, but in this case you test saying “Constantinople” twice after breakfast against a control of saying “Istanbul” twice. Would statistically significant results lead you to adopt saying “Constantinople”? I submit that that would be superstition, not science; and I submit that that’s essentially what you are doing.

52. # nybgruson 18 Nov 2012 at 12:36 pm

    @pmoran:

    welcome back, hope all is well.

    @ Dr. Hall:

    Istanbul or Constantinople? A submit that is nobody’s business but the Turks.

    @jack-anderson:

    In brief, what we here are trying to say is that there is no convincing evidence that ASEA actually does anything particularly useful, that there is no basic scientific of physiological basis for which it would, that conducting scientific trials is always a tricky business which someone not specifically skilled in doing so can easily make mistakes in, that a sample size of 10 is meaningless beyond a pilot study to generate a hypothesis no matter how well done it is, and that there are numerous well studied, clearly identified, and well known factors that can easily account for the results you are seeing which are much more likely to be the explanation rather than ASEA having any intrinsic efficacy.

    If you wish to further understand why this is so, Dr. Hall and The Dave have given you a very good start and reading through old posts and continuing to read here will shed some light on it as well. Normally I am always happy to offer my views and knowledge as well, but in this case I have just succesfully finished my third year and need to run some errands and see some friends before departing for a well deserved and long awaited vacation.

53. # nybgruson 18 Nov 2012 at 12:36 pm

    That should be “I submit….”

54. # Harriet Hallon 18 Nov 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Off-topic useless trivia:

    I’m partial to the name Constantinople because it allows a delightful tongue-twister in Spanish:

    El arzobispo de Constantinopla se quiere desarzobispoconstantinopolizar; quien le desarzobispoconstantinopolice, buen desarzobispoconstantinopolizador sera.

    Translation: the archbishop of Constantinople wants to dis-archbishop-Constantinopolize himself; whoever dis-archbishop-Constantinopolizes him will be a good dis-archbishop-Constantinopolizer.

55. # PernilleNon 18 Nov 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Qetzal commented in your original post that this stuff was originally developed as a drug. I found the patent, which is held by a dr. Robert E. Morrow in Medical Discoveries ltd. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,674,537.PN.&OS=PN/5,674,537&RS=PN/5,674,537

    Morrow seems to be a medical doctor, orthopedic surgeon, who has also dabbled a little at homeopathy.
    http://www.holladayphysicalmedicine.com/clinic/drmorrowcv.htm

    MDI-P is described as a hydrolyzed saline solution. The hydrolyzing process results in the formation of ozone and hypochlorites and hydrochlorous acid. Morrow was planning to use it for in vivo and in vitro microbial infectionsalong with cardiomyopathy and MS and certain infections. It was supposed to be given IV, along with neutralizing agents.
    Apparently, it never got that far, and the two studies I can find about MDI-P is an in vitro study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655300405766 with toxicity on mice, and a mouse study for sepsis: http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=15491120

    In other words, if ASEA and MDI-P are the same, this isn’t just salt water. I haven’t been able to find out the concentrations of ozone and hypochlorite – aren’t they supposed to declare that? – but this is absolutely potentially harmful!

56. # jack-andersonon 18 Nov 2012 at 2:47 pm

    First; Thanks to “The Dave” for providing explanation and Wikipedia links to provide support of the aforementioned phenomenon and theories behind the self-fulfilling prophecies. I shall indulge my inquisitiveness as deep as my graduate level understanding of psychology will allow.

    Second; Thanks to “Nybgrus” for replying with the confident contention:
    “……..there is no convincing evidence that ASEA actually does anything particularly useful, that there is no basic scientific of physiological basis for which it would.”
    I shall take your advice to read other points on the SBM blog reflecting updates to shed some light on the contentions of Dr. Hall and “The Dave”. I was not familiar other areas of the blog contained information on the topic.

    Third: Special Reply to Dr. Hall. Thank you again for your updates.
    In response to your “Listen to what you are saying” comments.
    It is apparent you have confused your request of me to provide you with an understanding if a placebo was used in the Teams product trials, assuming that my response was supplying some form of evidence? It was not my intentions to bring forth evidence. I was simply supplying the information you requested concerning placebo and how the placebo was designed into the study for the team product trial. I am not quite clear why you bring forth the contrast of an “Athletic Team Product Trial” against the information provided or expected of a Pharmaceutical Company or the fact that after reading a brief summary of the team’s product trial you are most certainly convinced it is flawed based on your contention which follows? I shall read in depth the SMB blog posts on the product to gain an improved understanding of your contention proposed as fact:
    “…….established fact that half of all published studies are wrong, and that studies of improbable treatments are even more likely to be wrong,”

    I shall return after further reading of the data presented in this SMB blog. It is assuring there is some sense of agreement on the SMB blog of “ASEA as saltwater” has no impact on degrading health, with contentions that saltwater does have potential of improving athletic performance from psychology point of view and from a medical point of view. So your contentions posted concerning efficacy of ASEA rise to a level of high interest for me.

57. # Harriet Hallon 18 Nov 2012 at 3:11 pm

    @jack-anderson,

    “It was not my intentions to bring forth evidence.”

    And yet you seem to be using the evidence of that trial as a justification for the team to use ASEA.

    Hmm… if you did not intend to bring forth evidence, does that mean you are not basing your use of ASEA on evidence, but only on personal anecdote and superstitious belief? Please help us to understand your thinking.

58. # jack-andersonon 18 Nov 2012 at 6:51 pm

    In reply to the question of Dr. Hall;
    ‘………if you did not intend to bring forth evidence, does that mean you are not basing your use of ASEA on evidence, but only on personal anecdote and superstitious belief?

    @Dr. Hall;
    I must tell you the wording of your question did indeed set me back into some puzzlement as to review the basis on which I must have wrongly communicated? It was most unfounded and “off the cuff” of you to bring forth the language of “personal anecdote” and “superstitious belief” as to imply my sole reliance on such. In review of the verbiage I have set forth I find no leading that you would infer such reliance. So surely you jest? May I be as bold to ask; “Why do you ask such a leading question with implications of “superstitious belief” in my approach to enhancing my health or physical performance?

59. # Harriet Hallon 18 Nov 2012 at 9:30 pm

    @jack-anderson,

    Let’s review. I wrote about ASEA showing that it is nothing more than salt and water and that the claims for it are unsupported by evidence and highly improbable (if not impossible).
    You told us you are taking it and think it is benefiting you.
    Then you told us that based on your personal experience you helped set up a trial for a team that showed statistically significant benefits for ASEA compared to a placebo. You said the trial was not going to be submitted to peer review because it was confidential and would reveal the competitive advantage of the team.
    And now you deny that your response supplied any form of evidence.

    I can only conclude that you do not care about scientific evidence but are willing to base your acceptance of ASEA on personal experience and belief. Superstition is an irrational but usually deep-seated belief in the magical effects of a particular action or ritual (like drinking a small quantity of salt water before exercising). I think your approach is far closer to superstition than to science. If I am wrong please clarify your thinking, as I have already asked you to do.

60. # cloudskimmeron 19 Nov 2012 at 12:09 am

    Dr. Hall,
    I’m very sorry that people send you abusive emails. You have responded very courteously to my occasional questions, and I very much enjoy your articles.
    How interesting that jack-anderson has showed up to illustrate your point, ignoring your questions and responding with poorly stated comments. He keeps claiming that he will read the earlier article about ASEA, but has obviously not done so. In addition, he goes from your statement that the claims for it are unsupported to believing that it “has the potential of improving athletic performance… from a medical point of view.” Wow! What a wild and unsupported leap from what you said to what he wants to hear. The similarities make me wonder if he is the same person who wrote to you, though his spelling is better.
    Did you ever find out if your correspondent was selling ASEA, or had some other link to the company? It appears she was just looking for support for her viewpoint–just like jack-anderson–and became offended when you declined.
    Thank you for your articles. Please keep writing. As a good friend of mine used to say, “Illegitimi non carborundum.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum)

61. # Harriet Hallon 19 Nov 2012 at 3:13 am

    @cloudskimmer,

    No, I did not find out if my correspondent was selling ASEA, but the video she sent me was from some kind of ASEA company convention, and the fact that she is taking ASEA would mean she has at least been influenced by an ASEA salesperson. After she told me she had been diagnosed by her doctors via applied kinesiology and a meridian machine, I decided any further communication would be useless.

62. # PernilleNon 19 Nov 2012 at 5:30 am

    Am I the only one having problems understanding what jack-anderson is saying? It sounds like a mixture of a government form and Google translate.

63. # Sialison 19 Nov 2012 at 7:40 am

    @Cloudskimmer, I hold the same opinion of Dr. Hall. She has always responded very courteously to requests for information. She is thorough in her explanations and writes in simple terms so that even lay people can understand the subtleties being debated.

    Jack Anderson does indeed have a writing style with a unique and inflammatory flair. It reminds me of the quote, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t.” This in itself is fine, the problem is when such people advertise and sell their bogus products to others. ASEA water is being marketed to treat chronic illness. Regardless of any effects salt water may have on athletic performance, the very expensive product is being targeted toward a vulnerable patient population. It is shameless, exploitative advertising and sales – no other excuse for it.

64. # Sialison 19 Nov 2012 at 8:34 am

    @PernilleN,

    Am I the only one having problems understanding what jack-anderson is saying? It sounds like a mixture of a government form and Google translate.

    I noticed the same thing. It reminds me of the Nigerian email and Craigslist scamsters. Jack seems to misuse the “?”, and makes other mistakes which give me the impression of someone who has difficulty with the English language. My grammar, spelling and editing could certainly use improvement, but his writings do not match up with his apparent position. A Google search reveals a person with his name in Maryland as being an insurance broker, who also appears to be an athlete in the same exact sport as discussed by the person posting here.

    In the past, I have frequently come across people who have assumed the name of another in order to market a fraudulent item or gain financial information for seemingly criminal purposes. It would be interesting to know if this Jack is being impersonated or if he is the real deal. I wonder if SBM can see the ip address of the originator, or compare their email addresses. What I usually see are people assuming someone’s name and opening a Yahoo, or Gmail account under that name. For example, Jac**nderson@yahoo.com. If this were the case, this real Jack, may want to know that his name is being misused.

65. # stratton 19 Nov 2012 at 11:21 am

    It’s like Homer Simpson trying to sound intelligent, or that episode of friends when Joey replaces every single word in a letter he writes for Chandler and Monica:-

    Monica: It doesn’t make any sense.
    Joey: Of course it does. It’s smart! I used a thesaurus!
    Chandler: On every word?
    Joey: Yep.
    Monica: All right, what was this sentence, originally?
    Joey: Oh. “They’re warm, nice people with big hearts.”
    Chandler: And that became, “They’re humid, pre-possessing homosapiens with full-sized aortic pumps”

    Stratt

66. # jack-andersonon 19 Nov 2012 at 11:59 am

    In direct reply to the SBM Bloggers;
    I start with my original post:
    Nov 15, 8:08 p.m. …..“Finding the posts on the ASEA product very interesting dialogue at a level of Medical and Chemistry far exceeding my own. As an ASEA user I am quite interested in thoughts and or understanding if there is potential that this product would be degrading or dangerous to my health even though I am impressed with its impact on my Athletic performance and health?”

    Within a short duration of the past hours it is obvious posts are now interjected to create and steer the premise of my original post in a direction it was not intended. I come seeking education on a quite simple premise. In explanation and intent I thought to be standing on the same side of the fence. Now obvious in retrospect it was decided by the “We” within the blog that I should be sent to the opposite side of the fence in order to create what I believe to be controversy on the efficacy of ASEA. So as not to “baffle them with bullsh!t” as “cloudskimmer” posts. I will be perfectly clear.
    I am not a part of ASEA business. I am not an ASEA associate. I do not sell the product. I am not
    advertising or selling the product to others or making bogus claims that the “We” of this blog have now conjectured based on the texture and format of my writing. I have not researched ASEA to its entirety and I am not empowered to debate the efficacy of ASEA. Dr. Hall has not offended me with her questions, again I must believe another conjecture created to spark the controversy the “We” so desire. I shall continue to read the remaining posts within this blog on the topic. I stated I would read through the blogs only one time. I did not state this several a times as “cloudskimmer” posted on Nov 19th only a mere nine hours after I stated it as such. After review of the posted information and review of this blog trail I will answer the question asked of me by Dr. Hall concerning Superstition and Science. I must accept her conclusion on the topic in all fairness until the point of my answer. I do have a day profession to attend to at this moment; which is credible, sorry to disappoint. I shall return after these items I speak to are complete and after review my writing to assure it does not appear to be “unique and inflammatory flair”. To conclude in true jest; cloudskimmer you misspelled “bullsh!t” and show improper use of the exclamation point.

67. # Harriet Hallon 19 Nov 2012 at 12:16 pm

    @jack-anderson,

    “I am quite interested in thoughts and or understanding if there is potential that this product would be degrading or dangerous to my health even though I am impressed with its impact on my Athletic performance and health?”

    OK, let’s start over from scratch. There is no reason to think ASEA would be degrading or dangerous to your health. There is also no reason to think it actually has any impact on your performance and health other than as a placebo and a psychological crutch. There are many well-known psychological factors that explain how people can fool themselves into thinking that a bogus remedy is effective.

68. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 19 Nov 2012 at 12:46 pm

    To me, Jack reads like someone who doesn’t want to get banned for rudeness, but very much does want to convey an anecdote that ASEA helps with athletic performance. I feel like I’m getting strung along with a series of superficially polite but incoherent word salad replies with no real goal besides having a large volume of them appear in the comments.

    I smell a robot…

69. # Sialison 19 Nov 2012 at 1:02 pm

    ASEA may or may not in itself be dangerous to one’s health, but when it is promoted as a treatment for medical conditions, it can have the effect of deterring patients from proper care, which can indeed be dangerous to one’s health. Furthermore, the exorbitant amount of money being charged for ASEA, especially with the misguided hope of treating disease, can cause enough of a financial burden to some patients so as to result in their not being able to afford necessary, evidence-based medical care, or other things which could more directly improve the quality of their life.

    So as not to “baffle them with bullsh!t” as “cloudskimmer” posts.

    @Jack, you can find the name of the author of each comment listed above each comment, and to the left of the date. When you read the symbol “@”, it indicates that the comment is being directed “at” someone. The “@” symbol in this case carries the same meaning as the word “at”, or “to”. For example, “@Dr. Hall” would be read as “To Dr. Hall”, as in the comment is being directed “at” Dr. Hall.

70. # PernilleNon 20 Nov 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Since there are reports about people feeling sick and vomiting the first few days they are taking it, and the company says that’s a sign of the body being “detoxified”, I’m not so sure it’s harmless.

71. # jack-andersonon 27 Nov 2012 at 6:52 am

    Glad to be back.
    Busy reviewing both blog threads on the information concerning the ASEA product.
    @Dr. Hall.
    Could you clearify the link referencing Dr. Steve Novella, it is currently linked to an article
    on scam products in regards to the Olympics. Looking for his reference you sited on 50% of all studies
    are incorrect. Thanks Jack.

72. # nybgruson 27 Nov 2012 at 10:59 am

    @jack:

    Read about John Ionnidis. The linked article is the most relevant to what you are asking for.

    And to be clear, it isn’t so much that they are “incorrect” in the common interpretation. In my experience (which may well be wrong, of course) most lay people tend to think an “incorrect” answer is because we didn’t do the process correctly or there is some intrinsic flaw to how we are trying to get the answer; e.g. if you solve a math equation and get the “incorrect” answer, that is because you solved it wrong and you need to learn how to do it better. While this is certainly true for a number of studies – mostly on CAM, but certainly many bad study designs in robust medical science exist – but moreso it has to do with how statistics work and how we should actually interpret results. In other words, doing the process absolutely correctly, with every single aspect perfectly correct would still yield incorrect study outcomes 5% of the time (this is called alpha-error). The point is that no study can be perfect in every way, and many studies have flaws that simply can’t be avoided whether it is due to financial limitations, population limitations, ethical considerations, etc. Combine that with studies that are actually poorly designed and you find that a large proportion of them are simply “incorrect.” It is not an indictment of the process, but a warning to realize that this does happen. Ionnidis simply quantified as best he could what the true alpha error is (which, of course, must also be taken with a grain of salt, but quibbling over whether it is truly 50% or 30% or 60% doesn’t negate the underlying principle that Dr. Hall has been trying to explain).

73. # Harriet Hallon 27 Nov 2012 at 11:58 am

    @jack,

    I don’t know what you mean about a link referencing Steve Novella. The 50% refers to the article by Ioannidis in the link supplied by nybgrus. He has explained it quite nicely.

74. # jack-andersonon 27 Nov 2012 at 3:39 pm

    @Dr. Hall
    I was referring to the link you posted on August 7, under “ The Research”

    “Not a single placebo-controlled study. Worse, these studies were “in house” studies that were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Steven Novella recently pointed out the unreliability of such studies.”

    In the interim I shall read the John Ionnidis information.

75. # Harriet Hallon 27 Nov 2012 at 4:16 pm

    @jack,

    Steven Novella’s article was about the unreliability of in-house research rather than about Ioannidis’ claims. The correct link is:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/olympic-pseudoscience/

    I don’t know what happened, but I went back and fixed the link in the original article.

76. # Amaltheaon 27 Nov 2012 at 5:24 pm

    nybgrus said: “It is not an indictment of the process, but a warning to realize that this does happen. Ionnidis simply quantified as best he could what the true alpha error is (which, of course, must also be taken with a grain of salt, but quibbling over whether it is truly 50% or 30% or 60% doesn’t negate the underlying principle that Dr. Hall has been trying to explain).”

    I think that reading this gave me a better understanding of how some people can turn to the sCAM stuff.
    Would I be correct in thinking the problem is partly the fact that in math classes in school you either do the process correctly and have the right answer or incorrectly and have the wrong answer, thus if there’s something wrong with your numbers you must have made a mistake? Since science sometimes yields “incorrect” answers then they turn to people who assure them that what they are doing is “correct”.

77. # jack-andersonon 05 Dec 2012 at 11:26 pm

    @ Dr. Hall;
    The quest of which “Cloudskimmer” and “Nybgrus” requested of me to review the information posted to justify their numerous accolades of confidence supporting your original contention of ASEA as simply saltwater leads me to believe no more or less than when I began. For within this thread beginning on November 13th evidence to support such confidence is slightly short of puerile.
    The other ASEA thread beginning with your post on August 7th ironically sits on a foundation of your own bias which you supported by cited “test-bias” studies from the highly qualitative psychology sciences domain with little comparison to the engineering statistics used on the 10 Athlete product trial which I briefly described to support your questioning of placebo. It is a quite interesting umbrella application or approach in which if it’s true with “apples” it must therefore be true to “oranges”. Apparently you believe this an acceptable approach in psychology sciences. However stretching the use of “test bias” to all tests, data sets, experiments, science and engineering statistics may be logically acceptable to conclude in “doubt” on such topics, but certainly not to conclude in “confidence”; supporting my suggestion of your own review and reasoning bias which has been accepted by the “WE” of the SBM blog as gospel.
    I conclude my reasoning to support ASEA as positive impact on athletic performance is not rooted in superstition or some deep-seated belief in magical effects as you suggested. The fundamental quantitative data and engineering statistics used to reach my conclusion far exceed the confidence factor of the qualitative “test-bias” psychology studies you cited to justify your conclusion on the product.

78. # Harriet Hallon 06 Dec 2012 at 2:25 am

    @jack-anderson,

    There is no SBM “gospel.” There is simply an unwillingness to accept a claim without adequate evidence, an appreciation of the importance of prior plausibility, and an understanding of the imperfections of research design and of the powerful factors that can lead people to conclude that something works when it really doesn’t. We’re not just talking about placebo responses here.

    You tell us that you have reached your conclusion based on “quantitative data and engineering statistics,” but you are unable to share that data with us. In other words, “I have evidence but it’s a secret,” and you expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.

79. # jack-andersonon 06 Dec 2012 at 10:30 am

    @ Dr; Hall;
    Very good point to make “there is no SBM gospel”. Would you explain how the psychology “test bias” studies you cite; “it is common knowledge 50% of all studies conducted are incorrect” are sufficient to make a 100% accurate statement that ASEA is Simply Salt Water after a review of one VO2 Max study, one In-process Control Verification Procedure and on one Antioxidant Enhancement experiment. The high bar you set for others is obviously not applicable to your own review. Sorry, but your 100% confidence contention of which the SBM bloggers accept as gospel does not cut it, cannot have it both ways. I would understand your doubt in the data but not 100% confidence.
    “Gospel” as defined by Merriam Webster “something infallibly or absolutely true”

80. # nybgruson 06 Dec 2012 at 10:46 am

    @jack:

    Nobody is claiming 100% certainty of anything. Please find anywhere that is stated by anyone here.

    We are discussing the concept of prior probability, fallability of studies, cognitive biases, and basic knowledge of physiology and biochemistry. By taking all these things into account, ASEA claims do not pass muster and, as we stated here before, is most likely not doing anything at all upon consumption. Since the way science works is by accepting the null hypothesis (ASEA does nothing) in the absence of evidence to reject the null, we say that ASEA does not do anything intrinsically useful. The evidence for ASEA does not meet the requirements to reject the null hypothesis. That is our only claim. Also note that we do not accept the alternative hypothesis – we reject the null and provisionally accept the alternative until better evidence tells us otherwise.

    The remainder of the conversation is to answer your questions as to why it would seem to be that there is evidence of efficacy for ASEA when in fact there is not. You are conflating the two topics and then further putting words in our mouths about “gospel” and 100% confidence.

    Furthermore, the “study” you cite is simply not proper evidence. You are the one claiming certainty based on an ad hoc study of your own, unpublished and unverified, and expecting us to accept that as sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This is not how science works and is not something we can accept. Even moreso, if we were to accept your unpublished and unverified results as completely true, it would still not be sufficient evidence to reject the null. This is why we can be so confident (but not 100%) that ASEA does nothing, despite what you see as evidence to the contrary.

81. # Scotton 06 Dec 2012 at 10:58 am

    Let’s also observe that even in the most charitable interpretation – where ASEA is considered merely unproven, as opposed to extremely unlikely to do anything at all – it’s still highly inappropriate to sell it.

    Even the makers and sellers of ASEA do not actually know that their claims are true, based on the available evidence.

82. # Harriet Hallon 06 Dec 2012 at 11:12 am

    ASEA contains only salt and water: it says so right on the label. If there are really “stabilized redox signaling molecules” in it, why doesn’t the company identify them by name and list them on the label as required by law? I think I can be close to 100% confident that their claims are incompatible with their labeling. I will gladly change my opinion of ASEA if shown credible evidence, but jack hasn’t offered any.

83. # jack-andersonon 06 Dec 2012 at 12:16 pm

    @ Nybgrus:
    As you requested Dec 06, 10:46 pm;
    “Nobody is claiming 100% certainty of anything. Please find anywhere that is stated by anyone here.”
    Here are the SBM claims from both blog threads:

    “…Bottom Line ASEA is Salt Water…Another Expensive way to buy Salt Water….You can make your own salt water at home for much less than a dollar an ounce.. ….And ASEA is nothing but salt and water….That’s a neat trick, DS, proving that salt water is better than salt water…..Oh, I see. Salt water from Utah sold by Mormons…..ASEA is salt water, but she wants to believe it is something more……I wrote about ASEA showing that it is nothing more than salt and water….ASEA is salt water, but she wants to believe it is something more…..I wrote about ASEA showing that it is nothing more than salt and water……”

    Really don’t see any of these statements claiming; I doubt it , almost certain or almost confident?

84. # Harriet Hallon 06 Dec 2012 at 12:58 pm

    The company must be 100% sure ASEA is nothing but salt and water, since that’s all they list on the label.

85. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 06 Dec 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Given these questions, consider prior probability.
    * Is ASEA anything but salt and water?
    * Do we know how the body handles salt and water?
    * Given salt and water consists of two atoms and a simple molecule, can you manipulate any in such a way that they would behave differently if consumed?
    Since the answers are no, yes and no, there’s no real reason to expect ASEA to do anything different.

    Given these facts, consider possible alternative explanations.
    * The Hawthorn effect is a well-know, well-studied psychological effect. People who are watched change their behaviour.
    * The observer-expectancy effect is a well-known, well-studied psychological effect. Researchers can unconsciously influence experimental subjects.
    * Social facilitation is a well-known, well-studied psychological effect. Simple tasks (like athletic performance) are easier when observed.

    So if there is a choice between an effect being due to salt water having hitherto-unknown (and dramatic) effect on performance, or the results are due to a failure to properly blind subjects results in a series of well-known psychological biases can make people not just think, but actively perform better, the latter seems more likely.

    If ASEA has a genuinely profound effect on performance, it should be easy to demonstrate with proper experimental controls. Make sure the person keeping track of performance doesn’t know what the subjects got. Make sure the subjects don’t know if they got the placebo or not. Have a convincing placebo – ask subjects if they think they got the control or the active condition. Use objective measures. Have more than 20 subjects per group. Until you do all this, you’re not going to convince a skeptic. It’s simply too easy for people to fool themselves. In fact, if you want to pursue this route, I would suggest drafting an experimental protocol and circulating it on a variety of skeptical message boards for suggestions and improvements. Again, if it’s a real effect, such improvements will make your evidence even more convincing.

    That, in sum, is why skeptics are skeptical of your claims. Nobody says you have to convince the skeptics by the way. If you think ASEA helps you perform, keep buying it. If nothing else, you’re contributing to the economy (but you may want to consider the parable of the broken window).

86. # The Daveon 06 Dec 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Dear Jack,

    If you are going to refute our conclusions about ASEA, please enlighten us: How exactly does one “recombine” water and salt to make 16 different products?

    Their scientific claims are wrong, their understanding of chemistry and biology are wrong, their experiments were poorly performed, etc. We reject it, not because of some underlying SBM “gospel” but because we don’t want to waste our money that has been shown to be utter bulls-.

87. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 06 Dec 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Note link. SBM needs a preview function!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_facilitation

88. # nybgruson 06 Dec 2012 at 6:10 pm

    @jack:

    different claim. I stated nobody here has said with 100% confidence that there was absolutely no intrinsic utility to ASEA. We are pretty confident it is just salt water, since that is what the manufacturer says and would otherwise be a in violation of federal law. Even then, I think most people here would agree that there is a very small but non-zero chance something else may be in there illegally since there is precedent for that (and hey, surreptitiously slipping in some amphetamine will make you perform better athletically!).

    Granted, as WLU stated, we are also pretty darned certain it has no intrinsic effect either. It is just that nobody around these parts (well, certain trolls and neophytes aside) would ever claim 100% confidence in anything. That is just not how science works. We just round up for convenience sake when it is so close to 100% (like this is) that we may as well call it 100%.

    To further distinguish and add some nuance, we also are specifically confident in the specific claims made by the manufacturer. Once again, as WLU stated, we know enough to say that the proposed putative mechanism of how ASEA is supposed to work makes no sense and is almost certainly not correct. We are a little less certain that ASEA itself has no intrinsic efficacy by some other mechanism (like slipping amphetamine into the concoction or some other heretofor undefined mechanism).

    I strongly suggest you read caerfully what WLU wrote and before going any further make sure you understand the principles behind what he says and how and why it applies here. He is absolutely correct in his statements and you would be benefited by truly understanding them. But it seems to me like you already have your mind made up and find a way to rationalize away the myriad solid and evidence based rebuttals we have. We would actually love it if ASEA really did what it claimed. Why wouldn’t we? But the difference is we need robust evidence before we accept a claim and we know enough about all the relevant topics to realize that this fits in well with the pattern of snake oil and not the pattern of a legitimate therapy or intervention.

89. # Andreson 12 Dec 2012 at 7:43 am

    Are you sure mercury is not currently used in vaccines? Thimerosal contains mercury and it seems is still used in vaccines. Am I wrong?

90. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 12 Dec 2012 at 9:50 am

    Thimerosal is used only in certain influenza vaccines, which are not part of routine childhood immunizations (which is a pity since children are more vulnerable to influenza than adults). The absence of thimerosal in vaccines is also somewhat of a pity in and of itself; at the doses found in vials it had never been associated with any harm – but meant that multi-dose vials could be used, reducing the cost of the shot and amount of packaging required.

91. # Chrison 12 Dec 2012 at 10:27 am

    Andres, what does that have to do with salt water being promoted as a medical treatment?

    But that is neither here nor there, but you could answer a couple of questions:

    1: Which vaccine on the current American pediatric schedule is only available with thimerosal? Do not include influenza, because about half of those do not have thimerosal.

    2: What evidence do you have that the thimerosal in multi-dose vials are harmful to adults? Has there ever been a case of an adult becoming autistic because of getting a vaccine? Do provide the title, journal and date of that PubMed indexed case report.

    3: What gives more mercury to a grown adult: getting a vaccine with thimerosal or eating a tuna sandwich?

92. # Chrison 12 Dec 2012 at 10:52 am

    Okay, so I re-read the article. It seems the salt water fan ranted about vaccines and mercury. This is the second time this week I have seen folks freaked out about thimerosal for adult vaccines. It is like they only get their science through sound bites, and really don’t know it was a “Think of the children!” bit of fearmongering.

93. # Andreson 12 Dec 2012 at 11:10 am

    Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless I would much prefer vaccines without mercury for my children (yes, my two daughters have received the usual vaccines here in Spain), specially after reading the wikipedia page about thimerosal. Yes, I will concede a little sane paranoia on my part.

    About the flu shot, after reading the Chochrane review (“We could find no evidence of effect on secondary cases, lower respiratory tract disease, drug prescriptions, otitis media and its consequences and socioeconomic impact.”) it doesn’t seem effective enough, specially in comparison to vitamin D supplementation. Nevertheless my father (77 y.o.) still does both, vaccine (just in case) plus vitamin D.

94. # Andreson 12 Dec 2012 at 11:34 am

    @Chris:

    1.- No idea.

    2.- I don’t have any. Nevertheless I don’t see the logic supporting the use of substances such as mercury or methanol (aspartame) if there are alternatives.

    3.- I will be more at ease eating the tuna sandwich, since it carries the antidote (selenium) side by side with the venom. Same reasoning with methanol/ethanol in juices.

    I am not going to buy salted water any time soon, though.

95. # nybgruson 12 Dec 2012 at 12:20 pm

    @andres:

    There has never been any evidence that any thimerosol in any vaccines has ever caused harm. It is not the kind of mercury that is known to be particularly toxic and it is in such miniscule quantities it is negligible. The poison is in the dose, after all.

    @chris:

    That said, I once actually sat down with all the best data I could find (this was in 1st year of med school) and determined that in fact, the amount of mercury in a single can of tuna was still technically less than the total amount in the old vaccine schedule which did contain thimerosol. I don’t have my work handy and I don’t have the time to replicate it at this moment, but I do remember being surprised at the outcome myself. Perhaps I didn’t use the correct numbers or maybe I did my math wrong, but I thought you would be keen to know that said old pro-vax trope is actually incorrect.

96. # Chrison 12 Dec 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Point taken, nybgrus. It would be interesting to see a tuna sandwich compared to a single influenza vaccine. The most in one vaccine is 25 micrograms. And that is only four of the fourteen rows in that table. When I had a weekly lunch with my mother-in-law a few years ago, I was guaranteed a tuna sandwich once a week. Now they make me gag, but I still have salmon, cod and seared tuna much more often than I get a flu vaccine.

    Andres, that Cochrane was a review article that admitted it had limited data. It also has nothing to do with this year’s flu vaccine, since it was not available when it was published. According to recent CDC news there is a good match this year:
    

    While it’s early in the season, it’s encouraging to see a well-matched vaccine so far. That bodes well for how well this season’s vaccine will protect against illness, hospitalizations and deaths.

    So I would not depend on Vitamin D to prevent influenza based on the tiny study of under 500 children that you linked to. It showed only any difference with Type A Influenza, not Type B. From the previous link, while it Type A is the most common, it is also more severe:
    

    Most of the viruses characterized so far this season have been H3N2 viruses; which are typically associated with more severe seasons. The good news is that most of the viruses characterized at CDC so far this season are well-matched to the vaccine viruses.

97. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 12 Dec 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Indeed, dihidrogen monoxide is a constant hazard at both high and prolonged-low doses.

    Andres, it is rational to be concerned regarding toxic doses of mercury that accumulate in the body. However, the doses of thimerosal found in vaccines were a) not toxic and b) did not accumulate in the body. Be concerned over large doses of methyl mercury spewed out by coal burning power plants and accumulating in the bodies of top predator fish. Be much less concerned over the much more rapidly excreted doses of ethyl mercury found in some influenza vaccines. Also, perhaps be a little skeptical of that particular meta-analysis (see here and here). And keep in mind that those vitamin D supplements may very well protect you, your grandfather and your children from influenza (though the former two are questionable since this single clinical trial was done exclusively on children – not to mention even within that study some of the kids receiving supplements still got influenza), they may asymptomatically shed viral particles that go on to infect people who can’t get the shot or can’t benefit from the shot. The influenza is as much, or more about protecting people who don’t respond to the vaccine as it is protecting the person who gets the vaccine. Getting the shot will help prevent your 77 year old father’s 77 year old friends, whose children do not give them regular vitamin D supplements, from catching influenza.

    It’s a low risk preventive agent that protects far more than just you.

    Gah that vitamin D study is annoying me. Yes, supplementation may have prevented some children who were defficient in the first place and come from Japan (an extremely genetically homogeneous population that is quite different from Caucasian populations found in Spain) from getting one type of influenza. But it was not a panacea – 10% of those receiving the supplement still caught influenza, and in sunny Spain where a tan is a sign of health (unlike Japan where a lack of tan is highly valued) I would expect vitamin D levels to be considerably higher, thus not benefiting from further vitamin D supplementation. Meanwhile, the influenza vaccine is something like 95-99% effective at preventing infections from well-matched strains, to the point that it may actually shift the strain circulating through the environment during a season. Vitamin D is not equivalent to a vaccination.

98. # nybgruson 12 Dec 2012 at 2:17 pm

    VitD does not help prevent or alleviate the common cold or flu

    Also, Chris – yes, in my math if one assumes an average consumption of tuna it very quickly does add up to more than that received in vaccines. I was merely looking at the old canard of “a single tuna fish sandwich” which is just not true. I used the EPA (IIRC) tables on contents of mercury in various foodstuffs and even played around with using maximum values versus average and still couldn’t get 1 sandwich to have more mercury. I cant recall where the breakpoint was but it was somwhere in the 10-20 sandwich range (or at least on that order). It also doesn’t take into account the difference between ethyl mercury and other forms as WLU points out.

    Also, the role of selenium in mercury ingestion is not quite as straighforward as toxin/antidote.

99. # Chrison 12 Dec 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Thank, nybgrus. I recently saw someone use a study from Brazil that analyzed the fish consumption of Amazonian tribes, and then argued that the vaccines with thimerosal (which are still used in certain countries) seemed to be the tip it over the edge. Apparently the author, Dorea, does not like vaccines, so he did not account for other sources of mercury like contamination from mining (from another commenter on that thread).

    And we are not safe here in North America, apparently there is mercury in California fog. I now wonder if I breathed it in as a kid when my dad was stationed in Ft. Ord, CA in the mid-1960s. Of course that was when I was getting full doses of thimerosal in my vaccines, including a full course before we moved to South America a couple of years later.

100. # Sialison 12 Dec 2012 at 9:23 pm

     I would like to express my appreciation for the work you are doing here on Science-Based Medicine. ASEA in particular is being advertised extensively in the city where I live. It is noteworthy that the local physician’s selling this product are heavily promoting it to hospice patients and house pets as a life-extending treatment. It is despicable to sell expensive salt water as a life-extending treatment to a hospice patient. Clearly, these appear to be predatory medical practices that bank on the fears of our most vulnerable patients, the elderly, disabled and even worse, those in hospice.

     You can watch these videos for yourself and realize that the average patient would not be able to interpret the slide images of the live blood microscopy cells being wielded by these ASEA promoters as proof of their product’s efficacy. I note that in this video link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuOYhUubJ-g&feature=share , Kerr claims that within minutes after consuming only 2 ounces of ASEA, the patient’s blood circulation and oxygenation significantly improved. He points to the live blood microscopy slides as evidence and attempts to compare the ‘Before’ and ‘After’ slides. Unfortunately for the viewers, Kerr conveniently explains that the ‘Before’ images of his comparison slides were mistakenly taken home by the patient, and thus currently unavailable for his presentation. This seems like a classic snake-oil sales excuse akin to ‘the dog ate my homework’.

     Kerr states that live blood microscopy using a drop of blood from a fingertip pin prick is a viable tool to assess one’s overall function. This same deceptive usage of live blood analyses has already been exposed by Mark Crislip here on SBM. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/live-blood-analysis-the-modern-auguries/ as well as on Quackwatch, http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html

     ASEA attempts to discourage consumers from purchasing other manufacturer’s products. They feature a health-conscious pet owner claiming success with ASEA when another commonly touted alternative treatment from Germany failed her. This consumer demonstrates ASEA being used as a mist to be sprayed in the face and mouth of her 16 1/2 year old dog. She explains how ASEA’s cutting edge Redox Signaling molecules improved the elderly dog’s vision, restored the pet’s gum health, and seemingly cured it’s incontinence. All of these claims serve to guide the unwitting consumer towards buying ASEA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4XPXZX1BtqM

     ASEA claims not be a vitamin or an antioxidant, but “a Quantum Chemistry”. They claim to give your body’s antioxidants “an unheard of 500% improvement”. ASEA claims their product “Increases Ventilatory Threshold by 12%. Some reported a 30% increase”, yet they have provided no references to any of their studies. They claim that “More than $5 million has been spent to test ASEA and its foundational technology”, yet again, they provide no references.

     Thank you again for helping to educate and protect the public from wasting their money on product’s like ASEA.

101. # weingon 13 Dec 2012 at 4:16 am

     “Nevertheless I don’t see the logic supporting the use of substances such as mercury or methanol (aspartame) if there are alternatives.”
     methanol=aspartame? If you want methanol poisoning, drink a glass of methanol. A glass of diet coke, etc, will not get the job done.

102. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 13 Dec 2012 at 8:37 am

     I don’t have any. Nevertheless I don’t see the logic supporting the use of substances such as mercury or methanol (aspartame) if there are alternatives.

     You may not see the advantage of these substances, but you are not a chemist or biologist. Thimerosal is a powerful anti-infective, it prevents the vaccine from being destroyed by bacterial infection. I am not sure if there is any aspartame (which is essentially harmless, particularly in the tiny doses you would get in a vaccine, less than in a can of diet soda) or methanol. Each ingredient is added rationally – just because you don’t understand the reason doesn’t mean it is arbitrary.

103. # Andreson 13 Dec 2012 at 8:55 am

     @Chris: Of course after reading Dr. Cannell on Blood Irradiation and on Common Cold, I got the impression that vitamin D is not going to be effective against staphilococcus aureus, rhinoviruses and influenza B at least. The study was tiny, but given “The reduction in influenza A was more prominent in children who had not been taking other vitamin D supplements (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.79; P = 0.006)” it seems a little silly to me not supplementing during the winter. And yes, there is already enough evidence for me.

     @William: What concerns me is that the reason of the lower toxicity of ethyl mercury is not understood yet. For what is worth I am a little more at ease now about my father’s vaccine, though.

     AFAIK here in Spain flu vaccine is targeted to risk population only, like my father (COPD), so no herd immunity target around here. About the meta-analysis and Mark Crislip take on it, I think that a RCT should take place on an elderly population with sufficiency status (say 40ng/ml of 25-OH-vitamin-D) of vitamin D (the other RCT of vitamin D on influenza was on African-American postmenopausal women in New York). Meanwhile my father will keep receiving the shot and having a 25-OH-vitamin-D above 40ng/ml.

     And no, vitamin D is not a panacea. Influenza vaccine isn’t either.

     I think I got your point on Thimerosal. I much prefer to understand the reason of its use, chemist or not. I don’t see any for aspartame on anything.

     @nybgrus: Your link VitD does not help prevent or alleviate the common cold or flu doesn’t discuss anything about flu. Cathelicidins doesn’t seem to do much on rhinoviruses (common cold).

     About the selenium cite, “Selenoproteins play two important roles in protecting against Hg toxicity. First, they may bind more Hg through their highly reactive selenol group, and second, their antioxidative properties help eliminate the reactive oxygen species induced by Hg in vivo.”, it seems to support its not as straightforward (ok!) role as antidote.

     @weing: Neither 5 vaccine shots. Nevertheless I will drink a diet coke only with a little gin and my father supplement selenium before shots, just in case.

104. # nybgruson 13 Dec 2012 at 12:32 pm

     @andres:

     The study was on URTI or Upper Respiratory Tract Infection, which is most commonly caused by rhino and corona viruses, but it also caused by flu. There was no decrease in URTI incidence or severity. While not specfically looking at influenza, this data support the notion that VitD likely doesn’t do anything particularly useful for the flu either, since that is captured in the “all URTI’s” criteria.

105. # weingon 13 Dec 2012 at 12:37 pm

     “@weing: Neither 5 vaccine shots. Nevertheless I will drink a diet coke only with a little gin and my father supplement selenium before shots, just in case.”

     For me, rum is a better poison.

106. # Andreson 13 Dec 2012 at 3:27 pm

     @nygbus: Ok! I have accessed the full paper now. There were 2 cases of influenza A in each arm of the study for 593 and 611 URTI episodes in vitamin D and placebo respectively (Table 2). 47% of the vitamin D and 54% of the placebo didn’t receive any flu shot (Table 1). Well, it seems to me that the vaccine for influenza H1N1 must have been a very good match (“Of particular note, there were few cases of confirmed influenza infection among our partly vaccinated group of participants.”) and “Both influenza seasons during the study period were relatively mild.”

     I don’t see any reason to discontinue vitamin D supplementation on winter.

     @weing: I prefer brandy, but without the coke.

107. # nybgruson 13 Dec 2012 at 4:11 pm

     I never said there was a reason to discontinue it. Especially in the light of clinical or laboratory deficiency. I just said that it doesn’t seem to help with URTI, including influenza.

108. # Andreson 14 Dec 2012 at 6:32 am

     @nybgrus (sorry for the previous mistype): I don’t think much can be said about flu in that study, with only 2 cases confirmed in each arm. Nevertheless it would be interesting to know who among them got the flue vaccine and which were their 25-OH-vitamin-D levels.

109. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 14 Dec 2012 at 2:05 pm

     Andres:

     And no, vitamin D is not a panacea. Influenza vaccine isn’t either.

     The vaccine at least has proof of effectiveness. Given sufficient numbers of people getting multiple doses of well-matched vaccines (i.e. like most vaccines for genuinely life-threatening conditions) you could eliminate a large amount of morbidity and mortality due to influenza.

     I will make one final point – I trust experts. Real experts. I trust that no matter how many cheap slogans and cute sound-bites are uttered by conspiracy-theory loons or pro-CAM granola-crunchers, the genuine experts can do a reasonable job of guiding us. They are paid to spend their entire days embedded in their topics. I am not.

     I trust them.

110. # Andreson 15 Dec 2012 at 2:22 pm

     @William: I am more skeptic than you about experts’ recommendations, it seems. After years complying with official recommendations about diet, I didn’t like realizing those recommendations were based on mere opinion and little else (see the Research Report by William R. Ware from page 9 onwards or Richard D. Feinman’s The Washington Diet). I don’t delegate decisions on preventive measures to anyone anymore. I am not sure of the experts’ unbiasedness (and logical assumptions used have been proven wrong before, like in treating mild high blood pressure). I would like a Randomized Controlled Trial taking place about flu vaccine effectiveness on the elderly with sufficiency status (say 40ng/ml of 25-OH-vitamin-D) of vitamin D (I would volunteer) to settle clearly the question.

111. # Sarah from Germanyon 17 Dec 2012 at 6:00 pm

     Greetings,

     Here is a copy of some email conversations I have had with Dr. Hall.

     Dear Paul, Harriet, Steve and David

     I was on your site Science-Based Medicine and I read the article published by Harriet about Asea. I completely understand your skeptisism – I was also there. I have a B.Sc. in microbiology. When my mother came to me singing the praises of Asea, I was nothing but skeptic. I did my research to prove it as a placebo hoax. I realize how Asea looks to the scientific community but I tell you – the research and properly published results are coming. I promise you – this is no hoax – this is the future.

     Dr. David Nieman from Appalachian State University is doing the 3rd party research about Asea. He has confirmed that there are in fact, stabilized redox signalling molecules in Asea. He does not know how they have done it but he has verified 100% that they are there. His findings will be published in a peer reviewed journal in April 2013. The first company which discovered the technology (Medical Discoveries Inc.) tried to have their product approved through the FDA for cystic fibrosis patients. They invested $29 million and ran out of money (they didn’t have the $100 million that most drugs cost to create and bring to market). There are 17 years of unpublished research about this product. When the current company, Asea, bought the intellectual property, they found in the research that this product helped pretty much every condition. They decided to market it as a supplement as salt and water are the only ingredients. Because it is sold as a supplement, they cannot claim to cure, treat or prevent anything, just make our immune systems work as efficiently as possible. They also decided on a direct sales model, it is a different method of distribution but definitely not a get rich quick scheme. They pay their associates for their marketing and advertising – it is a different method of inventory management. Word of mouth is a very powerful marketing tool when you have a product that can help many sick people but you are not permitted to state which types of illnesses it helps. Many negative stigmas exist about direct sales but Tupperware, Melaluca, Amway and Usana are all legal network marketing companies just like Asea. If they had decided to pursue drug approval through the FDA for the more than 200 indications they found Asea helped, they would have needed more than a billion dollars to invest and more than 10 years to get it to the people. Then the people could really complain about the price. It is just a matter of time until all embrace this technology. Asea is now in 14 countries with over 100,000 associates – that is a whole lot of placebo results… I promise you, at some point in all of your lives, you will take Asea. It is not an “if” product, it is a “when” product. Penicillin was also laughed at when it was first introduced as a medicine. My, my how we have learned to depend on antibiotics. Asea is the next step. It sure doesn’t taste like salt water, the more out of balance your system is, the worse it tastes. I have seen first hand how Asea works – that is the kicker – it really works on a 100% of people 100% of the time. Many big pharma companies were interested in buying the technology to shelve it – food for thought – healthy people are not good for the pharma sales. Please ask me questions – I am willing to educate people.

     Thank for hearing me out. Please send me any questions or comments you have.
     Regards,
     Sarah

     Hi Harriet,

     I was under the impression that you contribute in this website for the better education of the general public about what’s on the market. I can completely understand the space you are in and the doubt you have about Asea – I was also there. I am not trying to gain anything but having these conversations, people need to know that this exists and that it works. If you have questions, I am willing to offer explanations. I have regular meetings with medical doctors to show them what Asea is – I have no intention to have them endorse it or distribute it. Patients go to their doctors to ask if products are safe – how can the medical professionals give their educated advice if they have no idea what it is? Everyone is skeptic – skeptic is good but there is actually some interesting science about redox signalling and Asea that is helping people recover from some very serious illnesses. Any person suffering deserves to know about this product and they can decided for themselves.

     Here is a webinar by a medical doctor – Dr. Robert Ward. http://www.DrRobWebinar.com I know that much of the info available about this product is very sensationalized but I promise you there is truth behind all the miraculous crap.

     I stumbled upon this video clip – the DCA has one similar chemical aspect (a chlorine speices) to ASEA which triggers similar physiological responses. Of course, DCA produces 1 of these 16 molecules so its potential to be toxic is very likely. I find it sad that big pharma is not really interested in healing people, just making money.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxArVCsKho

     Please do ask questions. I am willing to be educated – prove me wrong. I have had too many experiences with Asea to discredit it as a placebo product.

     Regards,
     Sarah

     Hi Harriet,

     I appreciate your willingness to have this dialogue with me. I understand what you are looking for – I would love to have heaps of clinical evidence and trials to show you. At the moment, the only 3rd party evidence officially released is by Dr. Nieman and he did trials with athletes to see if Asea caused any shifts in metabolites. He and his team measured shifts in 43 metabolites, he and his team were very surprised as they are doing their double blind placebo research with all the skepticism that any intelligent scientist has. He has many more studies being conducted – one is a double blind placebo on a normal, healthy population from the community (from young to old) to see if Asea affects the incidents of normal seasonal infections (flu, cough, colds). The research and credible evidence that you and the rest of the scientific community are requesting, is coming. I have attached Dr. Neiman’s presentation.

     As for the labeling – because they have brought it to market as a supplement and not a drug – they can list what they put into it before processing (salt and water). Asea has over 30 patents protecting their intellectual property – of course they want to keep their discovery on how they stabilized it a secret. There are many firms trying to copy their work, there was one case in Slovenia where a scientist claimed to do what Asea had done, sold his product and made many people very sick. The composition of Asea is 8+ and 8- (16 in total) molecules. The positive are the ROS – Reactive Oxygen Speices and the negatives are the RS – Reduced Speices. Because the solution is in perfect equilibrium, it is non-toxic. In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to Asea young to old, pregnant to breast-feeding (of course they do not recommend Asea to any of these ladies as most drugs/supplements never have clinic trials on these ladies but I have met some ladies who had issues during their pregnancies and they claim that Asea helped them overcome those issues), on medication or not as this all stuff that is already in our cells. From the Patent doc – here is the list of chemicals:

     Hypochlorous acid (HOCl)
     Hypochlorites (OCl sup-, NaClO)
     dissolved Oxygen (O2
     Chlorine (Cl2) between 1 – 200ppm) *O. Sup 2.Sup -, H2O
     Ozone (O3) from 1 – 50ppm
     Activated Hydrogen ions (H. sup – )
     Chlorine ions (Cl. sup.-)
     Hydroxides (NaOH, OH. sup.-)
     Singlet Oxygen (*O2)
     other forms of Reactive Oxygen Speices (ROS) (OCl, HO. sup.-)

     I am happy to post on the website – it says that you are not accepting further comments on this topic though. Is there somewhere else to leave my comments?

     As I mentioned earlier, I appreciate your time and effort in entering into this dialogue. It is clear that I have my experiences and convictions with Asea, I will continue to share proper, credible evidence as Dr.Nieman releases it.

     Regards,
     Sarah

     As one extra side note – I have a lab running HPLC (high pressure liquid chromotography) on an Asea sample – I will be happy to share my findings.

112. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 17 Dec 2012 at 7:57 pm

     The conventional advice for diet is:
     - try to eat mostly unprocessed foods
     - try to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables
     - try to eat a lot of whole grains
     - limit the amount of meats, cheeses, and other high-fat foods
     - monounsaturated fats are pretty good for your arteries, but not so great for your weight
     - avoid a lot of sugar
     - exercise daily

     I don’t know whether the links you provide really represent the kind of mainstream, expert advice that I’m talking about. I also don’t know about the comparability of dietary recommendations (which, beyond basic advice is pretty open, not the kind of nutty, “eat a pound of carrots every day and you WILL NEVER DIE” restrictive advice people on the promise of it being a miracle) to things like the toxicity of ethyl versus methyl mercury. Diet is pretty complex, a fair bit more complex than a single bit of advice about a single toxic compound delivered in very small doses. And while advice and recommendations have been wrong before, they evolve over time and become more right as the science refines itself. A genuine expert is still a far better judge of risk in their topic area than you or I.

     I’m not sure what your link to rationalwiki has to do with supporting your point since it’s a) a wiki and b) starts with the statement that an argument from authority is a valid one in appropriate circumstances (i.e. an expert discussing their area of expertise, drawing upon the body of research that underscores their expertise). I’m also unclear about the applicability of a letter to the editor, regarding the levels of vitamin D in a specific group of people (African-American women in North America) to the overall topic of whether vaccines prevent influenza. The fact that vitamin D may help prevent clinical-level infections (which again, says nothing about subclinical infections that are still infectious to others) does not mean vaccines are ineffective. Assuming the observation in that letter to the editor is accurately representing reality, taken in concert with the other observations of vaccination and influenza overall the suggestion is to get vaccinated and take a vitamin supplement if you live above a certain latitude. Yes, vitamin D may help prevent influenza from being symptomatic, or even prevent transmission – but a vaccine does this also. It is not “vitamin D or vaccine”, it is “get a vaccine, vitamin D might help”. Again, even those in the vitamin D group still got sick. Vaccination would prevent that, within the limits of influenza vaccination.

113. # nybgruson 18 Dec 2012 at 12:46 am

     Um. Wow. I’m at a loss.

114. # Andreson 18 Dec 2012 at 7:58 am

     @William: The diet advice doesn’t relate to the mercury debate, it was just my starting point about skepticism about the experts’ unbiasedness. That’s the point to my link to RationalWiki: Frequently, however, it is often a logical fallacy consisting of an appeal to authority, but on a topic outside of the authority’s expertise or on a topic on which the authority is not disinterested (the authority is biased).. I now consider appeal to authority always unconvincing. As an aside, we humans as a species are quite stubborn with our own beliefs and are quite unwilling to reevaluate them. Even pigeons do it better.

     Third and fourth point of your outline of conventional advice for diet are highly disputed. Actually I favored evolutionary reasoning as background first and any result in contradiction to it needs much more clear-cut evidence. I think that the diet advice shouldn’t have taken place in the first place with such weak evidence: just look the deconstruction of the evidence by Denise Minger. Yes, no credentials at all and it is a blog and not a peer reviewed paper: but it is written and anyone can read it and crosscheck those peer reviewed papers discussed on it. No, I don’t submit to the appeal to authority argument either and it seems that confirmation bias is rampant.

     About the vitamin D paper (letter), it reports result on an RCT (no, its main focus wasn’t measuring vitamin D effect on flu): After 3 years, a total of 34 patients reported cold and influenza symptoms, eight in the vitamin D3 group vs. 26 in the placebo group (P<0·002) [104 women in each arm of the trial]. Probability of these results be due to simple chance is quite low (P<0.002 is quite low for me). Does it prove the vitamin D effectiveness in the whole population? Of course not, but I think that it and other pieces of evidence prove that screening for low vitamin D levels (lower than 30ng/ml at least) should be started about now, specially since they are going to be low due to current advice of fearing Sun exposure (another piece of experts' advice).

     I consider the vitamin D approach more elegant than the vaccine one, since it is based on our own defenses. Subjective, I know. Here on Spain herd immunity is not a goal, so the vaccine argument is weaker. Nevertheless, my father will do the two things while we wait confirmation on both sides.

115. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 18 Dec 2012 at 9:44 am

     Meh, I see several logical fallacies in your approach (for instance, you seem to think that the topics you are discussing are beyond the authority of genuine experts, but somehow not your own), but if your family is getting routine vaccinations and your elderly father is getting an influenza shot, we’re not that far apart. I still think you are wrong, and trusting your own ability to assess evidence far beyond what is realistic (for instance, genuine experts recommend returning thiomersal to vaccines). Certainly while vitamin D may not prevent influenza with nearly the same efficacy as a well-matched vaccine, preventing deficiency isn’t a bad thing. It’s been recognized for years that vitamin D is one vitamin that might be usefully supplemented, one of the few evidence-based supplementation recommendations that is generally agreed on. The real issue is those who think vitamins are magic, and better than actual medicine, and eschew actual medicine in favour of expensive urine.

116. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 18 Dec 2012 at 9:59 am

     @Sarah

     There are 17 years of unpublished research about this product.

     Why isn’t it published? Strike one.

     When the current company, Asea, bought the intellectual property, they found in the research that this product helped pretty much every condition…I have seen first hand how Asea works – that is the kicker – it really works on a 100% of people 100% of the time.

     A universal panacea? Stirke two. Anecdote, strike three. You lose at bullshit baseball.

     Many big pharma companies were interested in buying the technology to shelve it – food for thought – healthy people are not good for the pharma sales…I find it sad that big pharma is not really interested in healing people, just making money.

     Paranoid rambling about Big Pharma and unfounded conspiracies – strike four! You’re not doing research here, you’re doing marketing. But it’s nice to know that apparently the marketers of ASEA aren’t interested in making a profit. An interesting business model to say the least…

     Asea has over 30 patents protecting their intellectual property – of course they want to keep their discovery on how they stabilized it a secret.

     Correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t a patent require publication in order to protect intellectual property? Isn’t the patent process quite public?

     I’m still curious why, despite all this amazing research that exists, nobody has thought to, I don’t know, publish the results? If it’s as miraculous as described, surely they could make a career out of it, and not just selling through pyramid schemes…

117. # Harriet Hallon 18 Dec 2012 at 11:05 am

     @Sarah,

     ” it really works on a 100% of people 100% of the time.”

     I find that hard to believe. Nothing in all the history of medicine has worked on 100% of people 100% of the time. And your claim is contradicted by accounts on the internet of people who tried it and experienced no benefit.

     “I promise you, at some point in all of your lives, you will take Asea”

     That’s a rash promise. I see a sure opportunity to make money for my heirs. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? How much money would you wager? I’ll match it and put it in a secure escrow account, and if I’m not taking Asea when I die, my heirs will get all the money.

118. # Harriet Hallon 18 Dec 2012 at 11:22 am

     @Sarah,

     The chemicals listed in the patent are not therapeutic signaling molecules. The patent is for an electrolysis apparatus that is used on salt water. Any kind of electrolysis apparatus would produce those same chemicals. Of course they can say it is “balanced” but that’s meaningless, because when you separate a molecule into ions, an equal number of positive and negative ions are necessarily produced. The chemicals on that list are produced in tiny amounts and don’t last. As soon as a positive ion meets up with a negative ion, they glom onto each other to form a neutral molecule. There is no way to “stabilize” them and prevent their recombination.

     And while it is true that redox signaling molecules play an essential role in biology, redox processes can harm as well as help. There is no evidence and no reason to think that:
     1. Significant quantities of “stabilized” redox signaling ingredients are present in Asea
     2. These ingredients get to places in your body where they can produce significant signaling effects.
     3. They affect your physiology in ways that do more good than harm.

     And no, they can’t get away with not listing the specific ingredients on the label just because it is a diet supplement.

119. # nybgruson 18 Dec 2012 at 11:47 am

     WLU and Dr. Hall:

     Do you think Sarah’s post is at all legitimate? That was what my short comment of amazement referred to. I cannot tell if it is an Asea marketer, an independent true believer, a complete troll, or a Poe. It’s just so over the top that I cannot even fathom where to begin.

     It’s like seeing the internet version of a battleship appear on the horizon. You just know there is no point in even trying to doing anything about it.

     At least the internet allows for such random curveballs to be thrown our way and keep my brain wondering what on earth leads to the generation of such a post.

120. # Harriet Hallon 18 Dec 2012 at 12:26 pm

     @nybgrus,

     “Do you think Sarah’s post is at all legitimate?”

     I’m assuming it is. In her private e-mails to me she gave her full name and identified herself as an Independent Associate for Asea. What she writes is consistent with what other true believers and marketers say. She appears to be a scientifically illiterate person who sincerely believes she has scientific as well as testimonial evidence and wants to spread the good news. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s not just cynically trying to separate customers from their money.

121. # Sarah from Germanyon 18 Dec 2012 at 3:44 pm

     Hello,

     Thanks for reading through my long post – I appreciate all of your time and energy in having this dialogue. I know this product seems impossible. I understand chemistry – I realize that these redox signaling molecules, in the normal environment of the mitochondria are highly reactive and exist for milliseconds. When Asea first brought in Dr. Gary Samuelson to look at the technology they bought, he also said, “I’m not interested in salt water – everything there is to know about salt water has already been discovered.” They showed him some of their unpublished research from the preceding company and he was intrigued enough to jump in and help them understand what they had. He, as a PhD in atomic physics with a background in medical nanotechnology, was able to stabilize these molecules for them – the balanced set of ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) and RS (Reduced Species) molecules is key. Everyone knows it is impossible but yet, somehow, this man has done it. Dr. David Nieman has verified that those molecules are stabilized and there. He will be publishing his finding in Apr 2013. I will be very sure to share the paper once I have it.

     As for the issue of patenting – yes, it is a double-edged sword. If you patent something, you tell the world that you have this, you discovered or invented it and this is how you did it. You legally own that knowledge for 17 years. Unless you have the millions of dollars for lawyers necessary to keep other parties from reading your patent and copying what you have done – it is much wiser to keep it in a patent pending status or top secret. I lived in Asia for almost a decade – observing patents is not their forte.

     The science of redox signaling science really became an emerging field in 1997 when these 3 men (Paul D. Boyer, John E. Walker, Jens C. Skou) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1997/
     It is only in recent years that we have been able to understand how important these redox signaling molecules are in maintaining health. Here is another website if you are interested. http://aseascience.blogspot.de/

     I understand your skepticism, I don’t appreciate cynicism. I understand the image problem this company has. Asea is a very important discovery regardless if it approved for market as a medication or a supplement or if it is sold in shops or through direct sales. I am grateful to have family members’ health restored and feel that other suffering people deserve to know about Asea and decide for themselves. Being seriously sick really sucks, imagine having an opportunity to have a healthy life again.

     I wish you all a wonderful holiday season filled with good health and happiness,
     Sarah

122. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 18 Dec 2012 at 3:57 pm

     Why hasn’t this amazing data been published? Publication, particularly of novel, amazing or hitherto-unrecognized phenomena, is free bar the time required. Publishing data that is paradigm-shifting in replicable conditions would make a career, or several careers, win Nobel Prizes and get you feted on everything from scientific conferences to talk shows the world over. If you are genuinely accomplishing the heretofore impossible, why aren’t you publishing? Where are Dr. Samuelson’s works published on google scholar, because a cursory search turns up nothing relevant but a lot of youtube and company propaganda trying to sell me crap. It is not cynical to ask for proof of extreme, surprising or improbable claims, or to maintain the belief that companies are willing to lie to make money. However, lots of companies cynically use social media, blogs and similar internet-based communications to handwave the fact that their claims are empty and their criticisms of the greed of Big Pharma are hypocritical.

     You want to impress a skeptic, don’t point to unpublished data and pretend you’ve won. It is the use of facile and unlikely claims to sell unproven supplements to desperate sick people that makes skeptics into cynics, and you are contributing to that by continuing to use special pleading to avoid answering these rather basic and uncontroversial questions. Perhaps you should not bother posting here until April, 2013.

123. # nybgruson 18 Dec 2012 at 4:38 pm

     Perhaps you should not bother posting here until April, 2013.

     Just in time for my birthday. I’ll wait till then. Until that time I’ll assume the fundamental of physical chemistry and human physiology haven’t been overturned wholesale, so I guess I’m a cynic.

124. # Karl Withakayon 18 Dec 2012 at 6:06 pm

     “He, as a PhD in atomic physics”

     Did he get that PhD in a ’50s Sci Fi film? Perhaps you mean nuclear physics?

     “with a background in medical nanotechnology”

     Because those two fields mesh so well, it makes sense a nuclear physicist would have a background in medical nanotechnology. Small is small, right?

125. # Moebiuson 18 Dec 2012 at 7:42 pm

     Don’t forget she has a lab running HPLC (high pressure liquid chromotography (sic)) on it, not specifying what that might prove about her claims.

     I could have done that for her in about 20 minutes. And the results are…..?

126. # Moebiuson 18 Dec 2012 at 8:01 pm

     HH, ions do exist in solution as solvated (surrounded by water molecules) positive and negative species. Strong electrolytes (like HCl) tend to have their equilibrium shifted towards ionization, weaker electrolytes (like acetic acid) the opposite. The existent charge does allow these solutions to conduct electricity.

     Doesn’t explain the other nonsense presented here as proof of anything, however. “Activated hydrogen ions”?

127. # Naradon 18 Dec 2012 at 8:07 pm

     Did he get that PhD in a ’50s Sci Fi film? Perhaps you mean nuclear physics?

     I’d rue having that bit of ad copy pinned on me. The dissertation is “Nuclear Spin Relaxation of Polycrystalline 129 Xenon” (2005). Whatever, he completed a physics Ph.D., while having five kids, well done. Medical physics track, his advisor does experimental atomic work and condensed matter, etc. He’s apparently not pursuing an academic research career with it.

128. # TracyKingon 18 Dec 2012 at 11:23 pm

     Harriet, thanks for your article and I appreciate that there is a forum available for informed discussion of this significant breakthrough. Even if the press is negative, I am thankful that people are delving into this, and even if only giving it a cursory glance like many of the comment writers have done. Thanks to everyone for the time invested so far, please indulge me… Remember that this company just turned 2 years old under the company name ASEA, but know that they spent 16 years in pharmaceutical and university research so studies DO exist if you know where to look, obviously we can’t “use” them to make health claims since we’re in the supplement market but we are proving out our merit through athletic studies at this time in our journey to obtain credibility. The company commissioned studies performed by the Human Performance Laboratory, a well-established exercise physiology testing lab led of respected Ph.D.’s and scientists, and in cooperation with 5 universities including Duke, NC State, UNC, etc. These findings fueled further research on MICE that showed a 29% increase in endurance and that it was glycogen-sparing (a big deal, the mice were using fat for fuel first), which WILL BE published in a journal of medicine in April 2013; however this YouTube video is all we have UNTIL the study comes out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g. This video is worth watching, I think it will give you the impetus to follow me through the rest of this research to rebut the misinformation above…

     Here’s the FIRST step to take with science-minded skeptics like your readers, and for all the people that are relying on you to do your research: confirm that a proper redox signaling balance inside the body IS crucial to the body’s ability to heal itself. There are many independent “journal of medicine” articles to support this at http://www.asea.net/en/science/redox-signaling-research, as well as these I found on my own:
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286106
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15286382
     http://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v21/n1/full/9591032a.html (the “conclusion”)

     The NEXT step is to confirm that what we have in our bottle IS indeed redox signaling molecules — balanced, reactive, and the exact same as the native ones that are crucial to cellular protection and repair. This evidence is referenced in the first video above = the equipment and tests used to verify the molecules are described at the 1 minute mark, THIS factor was the most crucial component we were missing before we could get our study published, but we have obtained it. If you concede that 1) redox signaling is vital to health and 2) we have the only source of redox signaling molecules outside the body, then you won’t need to see “miracles” in your own body, rather you will understand the role of a healthy redox balance in repairing damage, guarding against bacterial and viral invasions, supporting efficient cellular turnover (including identifying and destroying cancer cells), and just slowing of the aging process. These downloads are compelling http://www.asea.net/en/science/asea-science, and especially this document from the lead scientist in this emerging field of science: http://www.redoxmolekula.com/ASEA_Component_Verification_Document.pdf

     I’ve read your blogs and understand that many people worry that studies are just manufactured data and that even reputable research groups can be paid off; however one would have to conclude that there’s definitely too much evidence here to believe it’s only simple salt water.
     1. clinical trial by nation’s most respected exercise physiology lab overseen by VP of American College of Sports Medicine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6k4up4kwyA
     2. one year double blind study by a top 10 nutritional education institute: http://www.hippocratesinst.org/archives/118-supplements/818-exciting-results-from-new-supplements

     Lastly, although we can’t use any of this in our marketing materials for ASEA (since it’s a health supplement and not a drug), there are plenty of existing published peer-reviewed studies that were written about it while it was owned by a pharmaceutical research group called MDI-P showing that it was indeed a very promising and intriguing new technology at the time of its discovery:
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10840346
     http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/mdi-announces-promising-results-on-anti-hiv-activity-of-its-novel-drug-156713715.html
     http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MEDICAL+DISCOVERIES,+INC.+DEVELOPING+A+NEW+WEAPON+IN+THE+WAR+AGAINST…-a018340939
     http://ww1.aegis.org/news/pr/1996/PR960421.html
     http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readreplies.aspx?msgid=9013148
     http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=15491120
     http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/748790/000095012404002498/v99255exv99.htm
     http://sec.edgar-online.com/global-clean-energy-holdings-inc/10ksba-amended-annual-report-small-business-issuers/2004/11/15/section3.aspx
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11366516
     http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=MLSC&read=2009
     http://www.bioresearchonline.com/doc.mvc/Dana-Farber-Cancer-Institute-To-Investigate-M-0001
     http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Medical-Patent-Week/2004-06-06/05312004333987MP.html
     http://www.thepharmaletter.com/file/69884/medical-technologies-appoints-board-for-mdi-p-african-tests.html
     http://www.drugs.com/news/medical-discoveries-inc-engages-strategic-advisor-explore-alternatives-5532.html
     http://www.biospace.com/News/1-files-ind-with-fda-for-cystic-fibrosis/18300220
     http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medical+Discoveries+Inc.+Receives+Favorable+Study+Comparing+Joint+Use…-a0132398997

     If you aren’t willing to take the time to look into this, I completely understand, but please all I ask is that you refrain from making quick judgments online, people are relying on you because they are too lazy to take the time themselves… they look for a “smoking gun” so they can get out of doing their due diligence. People will defer to the authors of these comments and expect that a respected Ph.D. like the author has thoroughly vetted the product (so they don’t have to) and reached logical informed conclusions. ASEA associates in 16 countries around the world have livelihoods at stake, reputations and futures are on the line. Please at least give us until April, when our studies will be published, before you continue to disparage us. I would be glad to talk to any of you by phone, 859-388-4297, or you may contact Atomic Medical Physicist, Dr. Gary Samuelson, Ph.D., at 801-973-7499, ask for his extension, he returns calls timely, he just asks that they be initiated by the inquirer. Here is his bio and here is a website of 66 one-hour recorded calls on how redox signaling impacts every organ system in the body: http://www.aseascience.blogspot.com.

     Dr. Samuelson was awarded his Ph.D. in Atomic/Medical Physics from the University of Utah and has received the American Association of Physics Teachers Award for Teaching Excellence. He works as an independent science consultant to help bridge the gap between promising emerging technologies and commercialization efforts in the health science field. He has worked on stabilizing nanoparticle structures integral to several promising technologies. Dr. Samuelson was the first to discover that the components of ASEA are stable redox signaling complexes being studied world-wide and has also helped to further stabilize them. Dr. Samuelson is devoted to advancing the science behind such promising technologies to the highest extent possible.

     Thank you so much for your time and attention, I’m sorry to provide so much data that is not in the form your readers would like, but this is what we have AT THIS TIME. ASEA is a significant discovery in health science, it’s cutting edge, pioneering-type science, and frankly, the results people are having ARE unbelievable and should raise eye brows! I am not at all surprised at the comments making fun of it. Believe me, I GET that it is incredulous at first, but all I ask is that all of you research this further before you continue to damage our reputation and do any more irrreparable harm than you’ve already (albeit unintentionally) done.

     Sincere gratitude, Tracy King 859-388-4297

129. # Andreson 19 Dec 2012 at 8:17 am

     @William: I am capable enough of understanding results of usual intervention trials or meta-analysis by myself, thank you. I am capable enough of understanding those points arisen by critics of vaccination and those arisen by their supporters. I don’t think that you are saying that I must be an expert on biology and vaccine making in order to understand intervention trials results, do you? In my point of view the expert has to be capable of explaining why he/she arrives to his conclusions and convince us.

     About expensive urine, I suppose you are referring to vitamin C, since vitamin D is actually an steroid hormone (or precursor if we are talking of cholecalciferol) and I am not aware of it being excreted directly through urine. Well, I don’t find the argument compelling and I find the labeling of ascorbic acid (AA) as a vitamin misleading. Why?:
     a) Ascorbic acid is consumed by marine fish and not internally produced, so it is a vitamin for them. Nevertheless, we have some special effects at high doses. From Optimization of dietary vitamin C in fish and crustacean larvae: a review (1997): “In studies with European sea basss using diets supplemented with high AA concentrations, positive effects on stress resistance have been observed in salinity stress tests (Merchie et al., 1995b). Also for turbot, cumulative mortalities after challenge with Vibrio anguillarum increased up to 50% for the control, while only 40% mortality occurred in the groups fed vitamin C-enriched diets, providing evidence for an immunostimulatory effect of high AA doses. This lower stress sensitivity was confirmed also for African catfish (Merchie et al., 1995b, 1997b),”.
     b) Some species of fresh water developed the capacity of its production in their kidneys, so it isn’t a vitamin for them. Nevertheless, there is some effects of supplementation of ascorbic acid under stress. From Dietary ascorbic acid may be necessary for enhancing the immune response in Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii), a species capable of ascorbic acid biosynthesis (2006): “There were no significant differences in renal l-gulono-1, 4-lactone oxidase (GLO) activity between dietary and LPS treatments, but fish exposed to LPS without dietary AA demonstrated an inter-organ transfer of AA from posterior kidney to liver. Our results indicate that dietary AA may be conditionally necessary for Siberian sturgeon to achieve optimal immune response, particularly in early developmental stages, information imperative to developing successful aquaculture programs for sturgeon species”; and “Many papers reported that supplementation of dietary vitamin C to the animals with AA biosynthesis capability can raise up the animal’s anti-stress ability and immune functions ( Pardue and Thaxton, 1985, Bains, 1996, Li et al., 2001, Zhou et al., 2002 and Zhou et al., 2005).”
     c) It seems kidney production was conserved by amphibians, reptiles and some birds while been transfered to the liver of mammals and other birds. Nevertheless, supplementation of ascorbic acid under stress still seems beneficial. From Ascorbic acid decreases heat shock protein 70 and plasma corticosterone response in broilers (Gallus gallus domesticus) subjected to cyclic heat stress (2004): “Under stressful environments, physiological requirements for AA may exceed the AA synthesizing ability of chickens (Pardue and Thaxton, 1986). These authors cited several studies that suggest beneficial effects due to heat stress amelioration and acclimation associated with AA supplementation”. From Vitamin C and infections in animals by Harri Hemilä (excerpt of his dissertation Do vitamins C and E affect respiratory infections?): “Rawal et al. (1974) reported that survival of mice infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa was increased by vitamin C supplementation in a dose-dependent fashion. Senatuite and Biziulevicius (1986) reported that in rats infected with Trichinella spiralis the average number of muscle larvae after 3 weeks was 40% lower in the vitamin C administered group. Chaiyotwittayakun et al. (2002) induced mastitis in cows using intramammary infusion of endotoxin, and vitamin C reduced the fall in milk production caused by endotoxin.”
     Actually it seems that liver ascorbic acid production is increased under stress at least in mammals. From Eight Decades of Scurvy by Irwin Stone: “This liver metabolite, ascorbate, is produced in an unstressed goat for instance, at the rate of about 13,000 mg per day per 150 pounds body weight (Chatterjee, 1973). A mammalian feedback mechanism increases this daily ascorbate production many fold under stress (Subramanian et al., 1973)”.
     It seems that these animals are also prone to increase the value of their urine. From Metabolic interactions between l-ascorbic acid and drugs by Conney et al. (1961): “The urinary excretion of ascorbic acid increased from control values of about 0.3 mg. per day to values of 17 mg. per day by 6 days after the dose”.
     d) Some species of birds and mammals have lost our capacity of ascorbic acid production, so technically it has come back to be a vitamin for us. Nevertheless, it seems it has some special effects at high doses, such as guinea pigs and rabies.

     My point? It seems to me highly unlikely that ascorbic acid at high doses is completely useless under stresses like virus infections on humans. Is it scientifically proven? No, I haven’t found any double blinded RCT with intravenous doses of ascorbic acid. Neither I have found a refutation of promising preliminary evidence like the guinea pigs one. Looking away from it and waiting enough time so I can complain about it being old enough in order to dismiss it doesn’t cut it for me either.

130. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 19 Dec 2012 at 10:19 am

     Your first three publications, which are far more important than any of your completely unsubstantiated prose, don’t appear to mention ASEA, salt, sodium or chloride that I can see from the abstracts and the one full text. Yes, reactive oxygen species exist. That doesn’t mean your salt water product produces them in a way that is biologically meaningful. Your claims about mice having enhanced exercise capability, if true, in no way substantiates the same product being meaningful in any sort of health intervention. This is “science” by press release (and youtube). Why you think your highly improbable claims should get to leap over the peer review and substantiation process, straight into widespread acceptance and use by the general public is unclear. Actually, it’s quite clear – making salt water is cheap, but proving it is effective is expensive. Much as everyone criticizes Big Pharma for being profit-driven, they at least spend hundreds of millions of dollars testing and proving their products are biologically active. You’ve got…some mice. If Pfizer tried to sell a drug to treat all diseases based on its ability to make mice run a bit longer, do you think perhaps some skepticism might be ventured? Again, all I see here is a tremendous double-standard that seems designed to sell a product that there is every reason to suspect is worthless.

     All the letters written about proxy measures, crap studies published in-house by supplement companies (“nutritional education institute”? Really?), youtube videos and PR-reprints that are more than a decade old don’t change the fact that you are selling a product that has no high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence of effectiveness for anything in humans, let alone claims it can treat everything. The smoking gun here is the fact that you are trying to sell a product that would never pass FDA approval on the basis of the evidence you’ve presented here. If this is the best you can do, I don’t know why you are surprised at the skeptical reactions you are getting.

     ASEA associates in 16 countries around the world have livelihoods at stake

     This doesn’t mean salt water cures cancer or cystic fibrosis, and from an economics perspective their lives and time would be much better spent digging ditches and filling them in – at least at that point they would not be wasting other people’s resources.

     Please at least give us until April, when our studies will be published, before you continue to disparage us.

     You don’t think a more reasonable request might be skeptics and the general public asking you to stop making unfounded claims until after they have passed critical scrutiny? Again, you’re asking for a free pass on criticism so you can keep making money on an unproven product. And the skeptics are being unreasonable?

     Here is his bio and here is a website of 66 one-hour recorded calls on how redox signaling impacts every organ system in the body

     And where are his publications that indicate ASEA impacts redox signaling? The fact that redox signaling exists doesn’t mean ASEA affects it.

     I’m sorry to provide so much data that is not in the form your readers would like, but this is what we have AT THIS TIME.

     I think what you mean is you don’t have any data that would convince even a moderately skeptical and informed person, but you’re trying to handwave this fact away.

     the results people are having ARE unbelievable and should raise eye brows

     Two points – extreme claims require extreme proof (you have none that is convincing, testimonials aren’t science) and if these results are as extreme as you claim, independent demonstration in well-controlled trials is easy. Like, ridiculously easy. To the point that if you have a genuine effect and you are not undertaking rigorous science to demonstrate them to the medical community, it’s borderline unethical.

     all I ask is that all of you research this further before you continue to damage our reputation and do any more irrreparable harm than you’ve already (albeit unintentionally) done.

     I’d like to research this further, but you’re not giving me anything meaningful to go on – testimonials, youtube videos and unrelated journal articles proving irrelevant points are not exactly helpful. You could repair the harm youv’e done to your own reputation by a) halting sales until there is replicable evidence that ASEA does anything meaningful and b) stop showing up on message boards whining when people criticize the worthless evidence you provide. Seriously, if you want skeptics to stop bashing your product, stop pretending you’ve got evidence (and stop trying to make money off of salt water).

     I really can’t wait until April, and I hope your study gets reviewed here.

131. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 11:11 am

     The NMR spectroscopy data in the video don’t make sense. Gears can help me out here if he is so inclined, but from what I recall from my undergrad synthetic chem days and a quick refresher thanks to Professor Google, the values listed indicate that he is doing C13 spectroscopy since H1 spectroscopy only goes up to about 12ppm shift and the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish. Furthermore, the two peaks he notes are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift. Using this handy dandy table we find that corrsesponds to R3C and R2C2.

     For those readers not familiar with what NMR does, it creates a high energy spin state in either carbon (C13) or hydrogen (H1) and then measures the relaxation of the high energy state. The relaxation will be in a discrete frequency, which depends on what else the atom in question is bonded to. For example, methane which is CH4 will have a different frequency of relaxation than ethane which is H3C-CH3 because the carbon is bonded to different atoms (H vs C) which stabilize the carbon in question differently and thus require more or less energy to excite it. The relaxation is highly characteristic.

     Now, NMR data is like a puzzle. You look at the peaks and determine how many different bonds there are and what kind they are and, assuming you have a single pure molecular species, can then fit the pieces together to make a molecule that would have all the different types of bonds that the NMR shows us. In my undergrad days our exams were literally just that graph and we had to determine the precise composition and shape of the molecule in question.

     What the peaks don’t do is tell you exactly which compounds are present. They only tell you which specific types of bonds exist in the molecule. A single peak does not necessarily correspond to a single molecule (unless it is a very simple molecule like methane or ethane). Furthermore, the height of the peak tells you the relative contribution of each type of bond. For example ethane (3HC-CH3) would have a single carbon peak that is double the height of the reference standard since each carbon in the molecule is identical with respect to the molecule (i.e. each carbon is bonded to 3 hydrogen and 1 carbon atom). You could then do a hydrogen NMR and you will find a peak 6 times higher because the hydrogens are all equivalent to each other (each one is bonded to a carbon which is in turn bonded to a carbon).

     In other words, not only is the presentation of what that NMR graph is telling us wrong, but it further begs the question – why are there carbon compounds in a drink that is supposed to be nothing but salt and water and these magical redox signaling molecules?

     I was tempted to go further and do the same thing with every point I could find in the video but with this egregiously wrong presentation only 2 minutes into a 17 minute long video, plus the fact that a google search for the “Right Now Convention” demonstrates it is a “convention” put on entirely by ASEA means I am pretty done here.

     This video is worth watching, I think it will give you the impetus to follow me through the rest of this research to rebut the misinformation above…

     Hardly. Unlike most people watching this video I am a little too informed on the specific scientific topics and methods to be blinded by the pseudoscience.

     Oh yeah, and of course comments like:

     WILL BE published in a journal of medicine in April 2013

     You know, I have an article in review right now which probably won’t get published till Feb or March of 2012 at the earliest. But unlike ASEA I actually list which journal I submitted it to. That’s how things are done around academia.

     The actual studies listed? Random PubMed indexed articles demonstrated that ROS exists in cells and trigger signal cascades. Nobody is debating that. So that NEXT step is the only step of actual interest at the moment. NEXT would be to prove that IF ASEA contained what they say it does that it would actually have an effect.

     This evidence is referenced in the first video above = the equipment and tests used to verify the molecules are described at the 1 minute mark, THIS factor was the most crucial component we were missing before we could get our study published, but we have obtained it.

     Ahem. Back it up TracyKing. Explain to me the NMR data and what it actually means and then we can talk. Oh yeah, I should add here that carbon compounds can exist in redox states but they are incredibly reactive species and should be handled with extreme caution. Mostly because even exposure to air will make them react but also because if you were to manage to ingest it they would instantly react with every molecule in your mouth long before it even reached your gut.

     The Gish Gallop of links seems random until it becomes clear that MDI-P is what ASEA used to be called. Notably, the composition claimed in the peer reviewed journals is different to what the NMR spectra reveal in the video linked. Like, fundamentally different. I won’t bother going into every article and debunking it.

     Next I looked up the AAPT awards list and of all the awards they have ever given, Gary Samuelson’s name is not listed. I also cannot find evidence that he is a U of Utah alum, though granted that is not definitive at all. The only things that come up for him at all are related to ASEA and PubMed doesn’t have a single author named Gary Sameulson.

     All of what WLU wrote is, of course, also correct. I just thought it would be fun to quickly poke a few very serious holes in the supposed science involved here. I am also tempted to call the numbers listed just to see what happens.

     As for eagerly waiting till April… I got a shiny quarter that says nothing will be published and there will be a landslide of rehashing all this with the accusation that “peer review is keeping me down, man” and nothing more. I don’t think the data or the study actually exist.

     Anyways, I am more or less done here. It was fun taking a trip down synthetic chemistry memory lane though!

132. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 11:13 am

     dangit, right up at the top that should be R3CH for the 24ppm shift peak. But I’m sure everyone here already knew that. :-p

133. # Naradon 19 Dec 2012 at 11:31 am

     He works as an independent science consultant to help bridge the gap between promising emerging technologies and commercialization efforts in the health science field.

     Actually, he works as a radiology tech at the University of Utah Hospital.

134. # gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 12:17 pm

     Regarding the NMR spectrum, the caption says that it is a phosphorus NMR. This should mean that it is looking at the environment of phosphorus nuclei in the solution. That isn’t unreasonable per se, as phosphorus is biologically relevant, but I can’t understand how that spectrum should lead them to conclude that superoxide is present (phosphorus NMR can detect phosphorus bonded to . The spectrum is meaningless to me (as a point of reference, I use NMR basically every day).

     Like others have said, it’s true that redox molecules are involved in cell signaling. I think it’s important to point out, though, that they are 1) transient and 2) reactive. So far as I understand it, superoxide is generated by the immune system to kill invaders because it is highly toxic. And because it is highly toxic, most cells have an enzyme, superoxide dismutase, the express purpose of which is break down adventitious superoxide, produced by regular metabolic activity. The idea that it is somehow stabilized in ASEA solution doesn’t make sense.

     Amusingly, to me anyway, is that their “redox active signaling molecules” seem to be the same reactive oxygen species that other people furiously try to quench by taking anti-oxidant supplements. It just goes to show that people can accept multiple types of woo that are entirely contradictory to each other.

     Minor, very technical and OT, quibble: In 13C NMR, peak height is not actually quantitative with respect the number of carbons present, for boring reasons I don’t really need to expound on. In 1H NMR, it is peak integration that is quantitative for the the number of protons at each chemical shift. Sorry for the digression. I used to be an organic chemistry TA and it gets the better of me sometimes.

     TL;DR ASEA has negligible prior probability, and the evidence presented is nonsensical.

135. # Naradon 19 Dec 2012 at 12:19 pm

     I also cannot find evidence that he is a U of Utah alum, though granted that is not definitive at all.

     Right here.

136. # gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 12:21 pm

     Oops: phosphorus NMR can detect that a phosphorus is bound to oxygen, but not oxygen by itself. Superoxide is O2-, i.e. not bound to phosphorus.

137. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 12:49 pm

     Thanks Gears!

     I knew you would be able to refine my rusty undergrad chemistry. I must have missed where the graph was labeled as phosphorus NMR. But at least I wasn’t too far off in my assessment. In any event, it really did look fishy to me and I knew that the graph couldn’t show what it was pretending to show (i.e. one of the peaks meant superoxide). And if gears says the spectrum is meaningless, then I feel pretty confident banking on that.

     You are also correct about the medical aspects of ROS as well as the whole anti-oxidant thing being completely opposite (though the anti-oxidant hypothesis of aging is essentially a non-starter these days; if there is an effect it most certainly is not the primary driver of senescence in animals of any kind, including humans).

     I appreciate your “minor quibble” – I was writing pretty much entirely from memory of my undergrad days so I am surprised there isn’t more for you to correct. I can’t seem to recall why 13C NMR is not quantitative – I seem to remember learning it that way. Or maybe I am confusing it with IR spectra? If you have the time and can give me a short refresher I’d be appreciative!

138. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 12:50 pm

     @narad:

     Thanks. I knew there was a good chance I simply wasn’t finding it. I still haven’t been able to find the teaching award though (at least not from the AAPT). Not that any of that matters – the science is enough damnation.

139. # gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 1:55 pm

     OT chemistry rambling:

     13C NMR isn’t quantitative because the time it takes for a carbon nucleus to relax (and emit a signal) is variable, being dependent on the local environment (what the bonding partners are). The basic idea for fourier-transform NMR, like you were talking about, is: irradiate with radio waves, wait and collect the signal, and then repeat until the signal-to-noise ratio is acceptable. What this means for peak height is that, if the time it takes for a given nucleus to relax is long, then the signal will be weaker. The relaxation process is one of exponential decay, so fewer nuclei will have a chance to relax and emit a signal during the “wait” time before you irradiate again.

     If you look at a 13C spectrum of a known compound, you will typically see that carbonyl carbons (R2CO) and quaternary carbons (R4C) have smaller peaks than unsaturated aliphatic carbons, for example. I am not sure why the relaxation times are different, but the consequence is that peak height is not correlated with the number of carbons that share a given environment, i.e. chemical shift. Thus, 13C NMR can only tell you how many different unique carbon atoms are present in a molecule, but not their relative numbers. IR similarly identifies the presence of functional groups, but is not really quantitative.

     This happens to a lesser extent in proton NMR. Aromatic protons relax a little bit slower than other protons, so if I am taking an NMR of that sort of compound I will make the “wait” time longer*. This makes the integration of peaks more accurate, which theoretically should be quantitative with respect to the number of protons at each chemical shift. I forget why it is peak integration rather than height that is what you measure.

     I hope that’s a reasonably useful explanation. I didn’t originally intend to write so much.

     *Silly aside: I suppose it’s possible that you could indefinitely extend the “wait” period in a carbon NMR so that the peak integration approached a quantitative measurement, but NMR spectrometer time is expensive, and the 13C isotope is both not very abundant in nature (~1%) and relatively insensitive to irradiation (a couple thousandfold less so that 1H), so this isn’t practically feasible because the total experiment time would be very, very long.

     Anyhow, you were totally on the mark that the spectrum was worthless, which is why I tried to impress upon my pre-med students that organic chemistry literacy was important, even if you don’t actually use it every day.

140. # gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 1:55 pm

     oops you said short refresher, didn’t you.

141. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 19 Dec 2012 at 2:10 pm

     Not that any of that matters – the science is enough damnation

     Science be damned, the rhetoric, even the logic is enough to indicate this is bullshit. The real science being discussed in the comments is far more interesting than money-fuelled word salad pumped out by ASEA.

142. # Naradon 19 Dec 2012 at 2:12 pm

     I still haven’t been able to find the teaching award though (at least not from the AAPT).

     The only thing that seems to make sense is one of these, which would make the claim puffery of the first water.

143. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 2:49 pm

     Hey Gears, that was a short refresher… and much appreciated!

     I guess what I was learning then was 1H NMR and in somewhat idealized circumstances for examination purposes. The principles, rather than true application, as it were. I almost became a chem major actually, and getting the chance to chat with you about it highlights the amount of education I didn’t get as a result of my choice. Not regretting it, of course, but merely wistful that we only live to be octogenarians so not enough time to major in and specialize in everything.

     At least I had the basic principles down and was able to identify that the spectrum was garbage.

     Anyhow, you were totally on the mark that the spectrum was worthless, which is why I tried to impress upon my pre-med students that organic chemistry literacy was important, even if you don’t actually use it every day.

     Exactly. I don’t need to know how to do all the day-to-day activities of a synthetic chemist but if I were completely oblivious to what was going on in principle I would have been blinkered by the sciencey talk. Of course, as WLU accurately points out, the entirety of everything spewing out of Sarah and Tracy is bunkum but people can get more sphisticated if they really wanted to.

     Also cool to know you read the comments even on older posts like this that you haven’t actually commented on before. I feel like I have a really awesome genie I can conjure up do discuss these sorts of topics

144. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 3:00 pm

     Oh yeah, Gears…

     If you look at a 13C spectrum of a known compound, you will typically see that carbonyl carbons (R2CO) and quaternary carbons (R4C) have smaller peaks than unsaturated aliphatic carbons, for example. I am not sure why the relaxation times are different

     Wouldn’t it have to do with resonance stabilization? In aliphatic carbons, whether saturated or not, you have a highly non-polar structure where the electrons are spread throughout “evenly” but also where hydrogen still predominates as side groups to the target carbon. Since hydrogen is less electronegative than carbon, there would be less interaction with the target carbon and side groups, allowing relaxation to occur more quickly. Whereas in carbonyl carbons you have the much more electronegative oxygen double bonded to the carbon and thus creating partial positive and negative charges. Similarly in quaternary carbons, the R-groups would act as electron sinks and “spread out” the electron density more than just aliphatic compounds. This could create additional interactions between the target carbon and the stabilizing R-groups, making relaxation take longer?

     I am really just hypothesizing (i.e. guessing) based on what I already know. Not sure if that even makes sense, but it seems to to me, anyways.

145. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 3:01 pm

     @narad:

     Yes, that is where I was looking and no “Gary Samuelson” was listed in any of the award categories in any location.

146. # Naradon 19 Dec 2012 at 3:45 pm

     @nygbrus:

     Right, right, but my point was that “Outstanding Teaching Assistant” awards are handed out like candy; the department chair makes the “nomination,” and that’s it. The prize is a one-year AAPT membership. Samuelson Jr. doesn’t actually appear to been a teacher at any point (I also checked whether it was a conflation with Samuelson Sr., who also has a physics Ph.D. from Utah, but that didn’t pan out), so the T.A. angle is the only thing that appears to fit.

147. # Moebiuson 19 Dec 2012 at 7:17 pm

     The chemical shifts in nmr are definitely due to electron density, and deshielding of the atom by nearby electron hogs. The magnitude in 13C-nmr is more related to interactions with the magnetic spin of neighboring atoms. It’s been a few years, and I’m probably not expressing it too well. Allowing longer relaxation times helps, as well as chemical agents that promote relaxation.

148. # Naradon 19 Dec 2012 at 7:41 pm

     Allowing longer relaxation times helps, as well as chemical agents that promote relaxation.

     An observation with broader applicabiliity than just NMR.

149. # gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 8:11 pm

     @nybgrus:

     I am a serious lurker on SBM–I would post more often if I weren’t such a slow writer (I am continually impressed with the amount of coherent prose that others here can produce).

     @Moebius and nybgrus

     Ah crap. When I said “unsaturated aliphatic” upthread, I really meant saturated aliphatic. My sincerest apologies for any confusion this might have caused.

     In any case, while chemical shift is definitely determined by the surrounding electron density as you have observed, I think peak height (aka signal strength) is not so strongly correlated with it. For example, quaternary carbons have a similar chemical shift to other saturated carbons, but the respective signals are weak and strong. Additionally, carbonyl carbons and aromatic carbons are in roughly the same region of chemical shifts, but aromatic carbons tend to have stronger signals.

     Electron density of the local environment is certainly part of the picture, but there are other factors, too. Digging up an old physical chemistry lab report I did about NMR, part of the relaxation time is how much “molecular flexibility” the carbon has, i.e. how quickly it can move around its bonds.

     I freely admit at this point that my knowledge ends and that a spectroscopist could tell me how I am getting it wrong. Like you say nybgrus, there is a whole lot that I didn’t learn.

     @Narad

     Ahahaha

150. # gearson 19 Dec 2012 at 8:18 pm

     After all of my technical rambling, I’m going to tell my favorite story about NMR:

     So back in the day when they invented NMR, somebody was like, “Hey, this could be pretty useful for medical imaging.” But when they tried to market it, people were scared away by the acronym “nuclear magnetic resonance” and nobody wanted it, the irony being that it uses magnets and radio waves rather than ionizing radiation.

     Then, some clever person said, “Hey, what if we drop the ‘N’ and just call it ‘magnetic resonance?’” and thus was born the MRI.

151. # Sialison 19 Dec 2012 at 9:46 pm

     WARNING: If you want to read science-based evidence for ASEA, skip this message.

     There is so much confusing medical and dietary advice being promoted on the Internet by physicians and other marketing agents. Again, I want to extend my appreciation to the Science-Based Medicine blog. It’s a top online go-to place for medical straight talk.

     Dr. David Silverman states that he is a physician from Washington, D.C. According to the following interview as well as other online advertisements, he appears to be associated with both a hospice nurse from Virginia, and Dr. Zachary Bush of Scottsville, Virginia. They appear to have teamed up in order to market ASEA to hospice and other patients and animals.

     You can listen to Dr. David Silverman’s conversation with Nurse Amy on ChargeUP. This particular ChargeUP recording should be available online for another day or so. Dr. Silverman alleges to explain “the science” behind ASEA. In listening to their talk show, it becomes clear to me that I’ve read more actual science being discussed here on Science-Based Medicine than in their sales pitches. Listen for yourself to Dr. Silverman’s “Dec15Doc” recording at https://soundcloud.com/chargeupcall

     One of ASEA’s current Facebook pages deceptively features a two-year old video, which was originally created not to promote ASEA, but to encourage area residents to participate in the local farmer’s markets. Yet, two years later, the video has re-emerged on the ASEA Facebook page and is being misused to promote ASEA. Interestingly, the video includes coverage of another alternative/integrative physician, Dr. Sandra Amrita McLanahan. Dr. McLanahan advertises as practicing out of the Ashram of H. H. Sri Swami Satchidananda (Sri Gurudev), otherwise known as the Satchidananda – Yogaville Ashram in Buckingham, Virginia. Dr. McLanahan explains how a vegan diet can reverse cancer and “self-correct” your body. Some of these statements appear quite misleading and seem to have been contrived from bits of truth blended with heavy self-promotion, marketing and woo – unless of course, there is indeed a dietary cure for prostate and breast cancer or the practice of yoga is inherently better than any other form of regular gentle exercise.

     The Yogaville Ashram, however, is affiliated with numerous area businesses which perhaps not so coincidentally specialize in offering vegan, yoga and alternative medicine and lifestyle products and services. It seems there is quite a bit of marketing for the interests of the Yogaville Ashram embedded in the doctor’s medical advice. I’d rather have the straight talk that I get here on Science-Based Medicine than be misled into thinking I must pay for yoga lessons, only eat 100% organic vegan, or spend hundreds on what appears to be fancy bottled salt water in order to stay healthy. The video can be viewed on the ASEA Facebook page, as well as on YouTube at the following links,

     Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asea.healingyourself

     YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=15yf8zzH5i8

     According to the following article, H. H. Sri Swami Satchidananda and his student, Dr. McLanahan worked with Dr. Dean Ornish and are recognized as introducing Dr. Mehmet Oz to his first yoga class. That figures…

     Why am I writing this? Because if or when I am unfortunate enough to become too ill to read Science-Based Medicine and am instead forced to depend on the advise of licensed medical professionals, I do not want to be fooled away from appropriate medical intervention; there are just some things I don’t trust an organic carrot or asana to cure.

     http://www.swamisatchidananda.org/docs2/health.htm
     http://www.healthinsightstoday.com/articles/v4i5/mclanahan_all.html

152. # nybgruson 19 Dec 2012 at 11:20 pm

     First off I just finished watching Kinyarwanda and after that some fun nuclear chemistry is quite refreshing. It was a very good movie – I recommend it. But very emotionally draining. It is basically the story of the Rwandan genocide told through the eyes of the Rwandans themselves. It wasn’t so much a historical documentary (though it was accurate), but a story told by the Rwandan people about what they went through.

     Anyways….

     I am a serious lurker on SBM–I would post more often if I weren’t such a slow writer (I am continually impressed with the amount of coherent prose that others here can produce).

     A misspent youth of video games and internet browsing. For a long while I was a huge tech nerd and did a lot of programming, hardware, and IT. I even worked as a repair technician at an electronics shop. This was so long ago I am completely worthless in any of these fields, but the rapid typing and navigation through multiple windows has stuck with me.

     Ah crap. When I said “unsaturated aliphatic” upthread, I really meant saturated aliphatic.

     I was actually wondering if that is what you meant, because that would have made more sense to me. I wrote it off in my head as the double bonds simply didn’t affect the electron density that significantly.

     I’ll admit I was trying to wrap my head about the strength and weakness of various signals, but I think I would need to do some more reading to refresh more and get more in depth.

     After all of my technical rambling, I’m going to tell my favorite story about NMR:

     Believe it or not, I actually knew that story…. my sister is in public relations so she loves that story.

     Lastly, @narad: very funny!

153. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:18 am

     Love it! Of course I could never match wits with brilliant minds such as these, ALL I KNOW is from direct personal knowledge of friends of mine with SERIOUS challenges who are now healthy and can show before and after extensive labwork that has their doctors confused but not sufficiently intrigued enough to investigate why (no surprise there!). People build belief in ASEA in 3 ways: they see a result in themselves, in others, or through the science – you guys obviously REQUIRE the science! Go get ‘em! Keep looking, I hope you figure it out for all of us, you would be doing mankind a huge favor and creating a legacy for yourselves! But for me, results speak for themselves… I don’t have to know WHY the NMR spectroscopy values listed in the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish and the peaks are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift corresponding to R3C and R2C2. I just don’t, sorry. And so as not to put the company in danger with compliance, I regret that I must not list the challenges I have seen corrected — and I’m fully aware that this sets me up for a slew of childish comments, so have at it, it’s not like I haven’t heard it before but I KNOW what I KNOW and your psycho-babble mumbo jumbo holds absolutely NO weight with me. You know what you know and that’s ALL that you know… there is much you do NOT know, and to be honest, that we may not figure out in our lifetime, but I fully expect both of you to be my best customers when you realize the results people are getting are too profound to ignore.

     I’d love to hear what you think of these safety studies… http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/TS2700.pdf, http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/ASEA_Safety_Studies_with_full_study_links.pdf. Seems like a LOT of trouble to go to in order to create a scam for salt water! And I’m wondering why the fact that ASEA’s founder was the former VP of Kraft Foods and their Director of International Strategy (who undertook this endeavor in his 70′s, when he was already retired and already wealthy), doesn’t hold any weight with you or make you curious? Why would someone like him, who, in his retirement, served on the board of a biotech company that was about to go under but that had sunk costs in the millions showing decades of efficacy and safety studies on a product that showed so much promise in published peer-reviewed journals and press releases but that scientists at that time could not identify the known mechanism of action, nor keep it shelf stable long enough to test it properly… why would he do this? Just for the money? Hmm. And yes he’s a devout mormon and he worked on the SLC Olympics, he was a well-respected business man. The reason he was on the biotech board in the first place was because of his knowledge of using nanotechnology to produce lactoferrin to preserve meats in deli cases for Kraft… he’s no dummy. I think my scenario seems much more believable than yours!

     Here are some other studies under way that might turn up something interesting, might not too but I think it’s cool that they are willing to put their product to the test and keep trying to figure out WHY some people are having such substantial reversals in their health profiles and why the results can be so varied. We know ASEA does something significant in the body, we just haven’t nailed down all the “why’s” yet but we’re investing in it. That’s how discoveries are made… trial and error. http://ncrc.appstate.edu/research-focus/current-and-upcoming-research. The VO2max and endurance threshhold studies http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/Athletics_US_ENG.pdf and the metabolites studies http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_MetaboliteFindings_FAQ_May2012.pdf, http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Research_Summary_Presentation.pdf,
     have just been interesting learning how the body is mobilizing fatty acids for fuel which create less metabolic waste… there’s some pretty substantial findings there worthy of further study and that’s exactly what they’re doing. And you dismiss studies on MICE? That’s how ALL studies start isn’t it? You’re telling me that giving a mouse some ASEA and watching it run on a wheel 29% longer than his counterpart doesn’t intrigue you? People do illegal doping with steroids to get 4% and we can give 29% and that has no value? Wow it takes a LOT to impress you guys, I’m beginning to wonder if you have any “common” sense because it’s obvious that you have “book” sense.

     Granted I have a very rudimentary understanding, I’m just trying to convey to you, from the standpoint of being an end user, I saw SIGNIFICANT results in my own body’s ability to heal itself — I’m not making some “snake oil” claim here, I’m just saying experiment with it yourself on how much faster your body heals, let’s do something really easy — test it on a cut or burn, it’s a simple test really, just use a curling iron, or burn your tongue with some hot water, after all, it’s for SCIENCE, right? You will become CONVINCED that this is something worth trying to figure out.

     And ASEA is not only ROS molecules in a bottle but RS molecules as well, it’s a BALANCED SET of stabilized reactive molecules – http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/Reactive_Molecules_Verification_US_ENG.pdf. We are now able to provide our body with a buffet of what it needs and it takes what it is deficient in. Get the book on Amazon, “The Science of Healing Revealed” by Dr. Gary Samuelson, ATOMIC MEDICAL PHYSICIST. I can send you a pdf if you just email me at tracypowersking@gmail.com. Again, from my very basic understanding, one set activates antioxidants (we have antioxidant efficiency and glutathione studies showing an increase of 500-800%) and the other set provides additional signaling capacity at the cellular level (immune system communicators), both are paramount processes that healthy cells perform; but when there are unbalanced molecules floating around (a consequence of stress and aging — our bodies just produce less ROS and RS as we age), that’s where our immune systems becomes compromised (inflammation, and auto-immune disease, respectively). There’s no “magic” molecules here, just do a quick look up about the benefits of glutathione, you’ll see that it’s a substantial marker of good health. People in hospice have low levels of glutathione, healthy people have high levels. If you can raise your glutathione level, it stands to reason that THAT ALONE will help mitigate disease processes already at play. It’s not magic, it’s “if A then B” logic. That’s why we will always refuse to make health claims about a disease, we don’t need to.

     And the Hippocrates Health Institute has been the preeminent leader in the field of natural and complementary health care and education since 1956. It may be hogwash to you, but I’d rather have their endorsement than not have it. And they did a double-blind placebo-controlled one year study on humans, I’m thankful we have that as much as you want to dismiss it. They were deemed the world’s number one teaching institute in 2000 by Spa Management Group. I’m sure that’s a crap award to you, but I bet they did a lot to earn that worldwide designation in their specific field and they have a reputation to uphold in their community, they took a risk exposing the results of their study.

     And as much as you want to dismiss the “YouTube” video, the speaker in the video is THE VP OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE (ACSM, perhaps you’ve heard of it?). He calls out frauds all the time. The fact that he broke protocol and speak at our national conference to defend this product shows its significance, the man has a stellar reputation to uphold, I’m sure he weighed the pro’s and con’s and believes our impact on the world and our impressive results will create a paradigm shift in medicine and health. Instead of symptom treatment, we are helping educate the masses to move towards prevention, and believe me, it’s not an easy “sell,” especially with people like you who are unwilling to look at this from any perspective other than another MLM scam. Instead of nutrition, think cellular, that’s a shift in thinking for most people. Due to our country’s regulatory environment, surely you are aware that finer companies than us have been dismantled for trying to make health claims? We do not WANT to make health claims about diseases, we want people to understand that keeping your body in balance is what helps you MAINTAIN health… if we made claims about the TREATMENT OF DISEASE we would be tarred and feathered for heaven’s sake! You really expect us to do that? Any associates who are doing that are endangering our very existence and they should stop it. There is no other more important foundational safer NATIVE supplement you could ever take than ASEA if you want to protect your health. The most significant conclusion I think a skeptic could draw from the “Metabolites” study is that the data showed only positive benefits with no toxicity. And if you were going to test a “SUPPLEMENT,” can you give me the name of a more significant and respected lab in America for this task than the Human Performance Laboratory which is a cooperative of well-established corporations and well-respected universities whose job it is to establish correlations between supplements and their impact on nutrition and exercise?

     Redox Signaling is the fastest growing field in medical biology and has been for about the last 11 years. There are over 7000 abstracts available in Pubmed, the National Institute of Health’s Library of Medicine, and about 200 new published papers are released every month, EACH STUDY TAKING AN AVERAGE OF TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE. You’re forgetting how new and cutting edge this science even is, YES sure we could have waited until we had all the data and figured everything out, all the why’s, all the how’s, all the clinical trials that cost $100′s of millions of hard-to-find investors’ money, but WHY wait when we already have anecdotal evidence that it is doing so much good, antioxidant efficiency studies, white papers, metabolite studies, we have the Guinness Book of World Record holder in Most IronMan’s (previous record 20, new record 30, google James Lawrence), we have an Olympic Gold Medal Winner in swimming Bree Larson… http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Antioxidant_Efficiency_US_ENG.pdf, white papers http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/WhitePaperVTUSENG.pdf, http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/WhitePaperBioactivityUS_ENG.pdf, etc. We know it can do NO harm — not one claim has been made about anyone being harmed from ASEA, can you say that about ANYTHING, any pharmaceutical, any drink, how about broccolli? Anything is eventually toxic at some level and causes problems for some people, but not ASEA because it’s NATIVE, whatever is not utilized is flushed like water.

     This I found on the internet but maybe it can explain it better than me, after all, I’m just some stupid housewife trying to raise my 3 kids, who enjoys learning new things and who isn’t so jaded as to believe that everything in the world worth knowing about has already been invented and exposed. This guy has his Ph.D., and has written some books on quantum physics, maybe his words carry more weight than mine. But seriously, thanks for the dialog and for engaging. You are and will be influencing thousands, if not millions of people worldwide, until we earn the respect we deserve. Your words will stand in history as will mine. Once it’s written, it can’t be erased. I feel completely confident in knowing what we have BEFORE the world knows it, before you know it. Are you as confident in your complete and arrogant dismissal of this technology? Only time will tell I guess. But for the sake of people I know who are struggling with health challenges and financial concerns, I hope it’s sooner rather than later… you are certainly doing your best to make sure it’s later. I feel sorry for people who are relying solely on your opinion, they are missing out, plus it makes it harder for me to get their attention. So be it.

     “Over 30 patents protect the PROCESS whereby ASEA is made using electrolysis in a unique way to electrically rearrange a sodium chloride solution into 16 different molecules. Sodium Choride and Distilled Water are composed of molecules that come from 4 different atoms: sodium, chlorine, hydrogen and oxygen. When they are rearranged, they can create ozone (o3), hydrogen peroxide (h2o2), various chlorine derivatives that are superior to a popular chlorine product known by a three letter acronym, and other molecules that are highly reactive. Superior because it has the other side of the equation – the RS molecules necessary to activate antioxidants that will neutralize the oxidation the chlorine compounds will cause. Using one without the other is completely irresponsible.

     In addition to these positively charged molecules known as ROS or Reactive Oxygen Species (8 of them), there are 8 RS molecules or Reduced Species, which are negatively charged.

     What is unique and profound about the latest research and perhaps the more significant discovery than even being able to create these native molecules outside the body, is that the ROS and RS molecules are able to co-exist in a single stabilized solution so that they do NOT neutralize themselves. That means they can be ingested so that the ROS and RS molecules can be absorbed into the body and can do their respective jobs.

     Until now, this was claimed to be impossible by the medical, physics, biology and other scientific fields because it is counter intuitive – how can you put both the positive and negative molecules together without them neutralizing themselves? The secret lies in enveloping the individually charged molecules in salt water molecules so that they remain stable and separate until coming in contact with organic matter, at which time they are activated, put to use, and made available for scavenging loose molecules wanting to donate or accept an electron (unattached loose molecules wreak havoc, hence the term “free radical damage”), all while inside the human body, inside living cells (i.e. plants, pets, and animals have cells too, hence no “placebo effect” theory, not to mention that the metabolites study was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized crossover study).”

154. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:28 am

     Utah man AND ASEA ATHLETE James Lawrence breaks world record in most Ironman’s completed in one year: previous record by a guy from Belgium in 2008 was 20, James reached #21 in Sept and kept going to SHATTER the record with 30 Ironman’s! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YPX7o2F6dI

     http://fox13now.com/2012/09/02/utah-man-breaks-ironman-world-record/

155. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:31 am

     Former “skeptic” Rich Roll, named Men’s Fitness Magazine’s 2009 “Top 10 Fittest Humans on Earth” endorses ASEA, first time he’s ever endorsed anything: http://www.richroll.com/uncategorized/asea/

156. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:35 am

     Board Certified MD, clinical research physican, chiropractors, etc, endorse ASEA! http://www.amazingcd.com/. http://www.drrobwebinar.com

157. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:41 am

     Olympic swimmer, Guinness World Record Holder, race car driver, Hollywood stuntman, professional cyclists and triathletes, retired Olympic Gold Medalist, professional baseball player, and NCAA Div. 1 basketball coach ALL ENDORSE ASEA! http://www.redoxendurancetraining.com/REDOX_Training/ASEA_Athletes.html

158. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:45 am

     Naturopath explains ASEA: http://www.redoxpatient.com/Redox_Patient/User_Guide.html
     Practitioners endorse ASEA: http://www.redoxpractitioner.com
     Athletes endorse ASEA: http://www.redoxtrainer.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7d6kLoHbxI

159. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 4:54 am

     Ms. King, this barrage merely makes you and the product that you hawk look very foolish.

160. # rorkon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:36 am

     In other news, homeopathy endorsed by those making money from it, destroying any doubts of its efficacy.

161. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:04 am

     @Sialis “You can listen to Dr. David Silverman’s conversation with Nurse Amy on ChargeUP. This particular ChargeUP recording should be available online for another day or so. Dr. Silverman alleges to explain “the science” behind ASEA. In listening to their talk show, it becomes clear to me that I’ve read more actual science being discussed here on Science-Based Medicine than in their sales pitches. Listen for yourself to Dr. Silverman’s “Dec15Doc” recording at https://soundcloud.com/chargeupcall”

     Dr. Silverman is trying to explain ASEA in layman’s terms, it is not intended to be directed at scientists. If you want science, go to http://www.drrobwebinar.com but that’s still trying to make it understandable for a “reasonable” person, in simple terms. We are marketing a product, it’s not our job to explain the intricacies of the science behind it when we already have white papers and clinical testing to show it has value. Due diligence is our job as consumers. It was presented at the 2010 A4M conference http://osteoporosis-lawyers.com/tag/samuelson/.

     “One of ASEA’s current Facebook pages deceptively features a two-year old video, which was originally created not to promote ASEA, but to encourage area residents to participate in the local farmer’s markets. Yet, two years later, the video has re-emerged on the ASEA Facebook page and is being misused to promote ASEA.”

     That’s just an ASEA associate who started a fan page of her friends, it has 63 likes, it’s just a community of like-minded people who care about health. She started that page for her FRIENDS, it’s not by ASEA, LOL! That video did not have anything to do with ASEA nor did it claim to, it was just an FYI since anyone who is willing to invest in ASEA for their health, is also aware of the misinformation that exists about our food supply. We just try to help each other and inform each other of good information, some not related to ASEA at all. Good cellular health and nutritional health go hand in hand. Anyone should be able to recognize that this was not produced by corporate or intended to mislead anyone. Let’s stick to ASEA’s claims, we have more than enough to debate without going here. I did enjoy the blood analysis video on her page though, we duplicated those exact results by a hematologist in our group who lives in my hometown, it was quite compelling.

162. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:18 am

     Hey Tracy, I can shorten your posts considerably:

     Blah blah anecdote blah irrelevant link blah unfounded claim blah conspiracy blah blah blah blah JUST TRY IT BECAUSE IT WORKS blah blah and I’ll hit my sales target for the month.

     You are either an extremely credulous person whose innate skepticism has been overwhelmed, or a dishonest huckster (I’m leaning towards the latter now). In either case you work for a multi-level marketing company that sells expensive salt water with no reasonable proof it does something. Your posts show evidence of magical thinking – that if you mention ASEA in the same sentence as “redox signalling” that somehow the two become linked. There’s also considerable hypocrisy (don’t trust Big Pharma, but trust me). You don’t understand or don’t care why anecdotes are not trustworthy (here’s three reasons from most-to-least positive – the people for whom it didn’t work don’t post their negative anecdotes; the people could be lying; the people might not exist whatsoever). Your in-house studies are essentially worthless since again, there is massive profit motive to fake results and no quality control. I mean really – if ASEA is completely making up their nonsense, who is going to call them on it? You are also citing in house safety studies, but correct me if I’m wrong here – is there a difference between not poisoning someone and curing disease? I was under the impression they were different. I was also under the impression that mice and people were different, which is why mouse studies are generally seen as a starting point. But since you’ve now demonstrated that mouse studies are good enough for ASEA, we can dispense with human trials and start popping pills based on Pfizer’s in-house mouse work. It’ll be great for their bottom line, and we here at SBM really love doing what we can to support our Dark Corporate Overlords.

     Frankly I’m having a hard time posting comments without using the word “idiot”. It’s not childish to point out the flaws in your claims, because most adults would prefer to base their beliefs on reality. Perhaps you are the exception. Please, go shill your product elsewhere. Someone who considers a 12-year-old endorsement by the “Spa Management Group” is completely wasting our time, despite their doubtless well-respected “Journal of Spa Studies”, or perhaps more narrowly-targetted “Mud Based Facial Masks Science Quarterly”.

163. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:33 am

     Olympic swimmer, Guinness World Record Holder, race car driver, Hollywood stuntman, professional cyclists and triathletes, retired Olympic Gold Medalist, professional baseball player, and NCAA Div. 1 basketball coach ALL ENDORSE ASEA!

     Ha.

     Board Certified MD, clinical research physican, chiropractors, etc, endorse ASEA!

     Ahaha!

     Naturopath explains ASEA

     AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

     You just missed the first rule of communications – know your audience. We get it, you have a sales target to meet, you probably have a part-time job as an ASEA Web 2.0 officer, and you realize that most people on the internet know about as much about science as you do, so they’ll probably be convinced by some technobabble. Tell me, are the patents you talk about held by Rockwell Automations? Perhaps your Chief Ethics Officer is Kevin Trudeau?

     None of your handwaving and desperate Gish Galloping changes the fact that your product has no good evidence to support it as an effective medical intervention, yet you are still selling it. Your actions are flatly unethical – you’re either taking money for a product that has no real proof of efficacy, or you have a genuinely effective product (ha!) that you are keeping out of wide-scale adoption by refusing to test it.

     Please stop wasting your time here. Either conduct a high quality test (which again, if ASEA is as effective as you say would be easy – double-blinding with objective outcome measures) or leave. This isn’t a naturopathy discussion board, you won’t get traction here. A lot of mockery though.

164. # nybgruson 20 Dec 2012 at 10:54 am

     I’m thoroughly impressed. This is downright Oracian in length… if only it were also Oracian in scientific literacy.

     I don’t have to know WHY the NMR spectroscopy values listed in the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish and the peaks are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift corresponding to R3C and R2C2. I just don’t, sorry

     Firstly, I’m impressed that she is actually reading what we are writing.

     Secondly, you think you would come to a place called science based medicine and then think that a hand wave of “I don’t need to understand no stinkin’ science, my stuff works anyways” is going to fly? You must be just a little delusional.

     Why does it matter? Because the safety data on MDI-P lists what is supposedly in ASEA (which apparently used to be called MDI-P):

     HOCl-, OCl-, Cl-, Cl2, O2-, H2O2, and O3-4

     First off that is (in order): bleach, bleach, chloride anion, chlorine gas, superoxide radical, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone.

     Besides being products of white cell metabolic burst for bacterial killing in phagolysosomes, these are highly reactive molecular species known as free radicals.

     Oh yeah, and none of them correspond to the NMR peaks from the spectroscopy. I knew they didn’t, and Gears refined that and clearly demonstrated it even more.

     So that, Ms. King, is why it matters what the NMR data show – because you are throwing mountains of sciencey sounding stuff at us which is contradictory, doesn’t make sense, and would be flashy enough to fool most people, but not those at science based medicine.

     Also, safety data is not interesting to us. We have no doubt that salt water ingestion is generally pretty safe.

     Seems like a LOT of trouble to go to in order to create a scam for salt water!

     If you are going to lie about something, lie big so more people will believe you.

     why would he do this? Just for the money? Hmm. And yes he’s a devout mormon

     That’s supposed to carry some weight? Because no religious people, particularly Mormon’s, knowingly take people’s money? Never mind that the Mormon church is ridiculously rich and gives nearly none of its money away, the world is full of the “devout” scamming money from people.

     I think my scenario seems much more believable than yours!

     Your ramblings are much more believable than us actually analyzing the supposed hard science facts you have been flinging at us? Really? Stuff you say means more than a group of people with expertise in the matter pointing out that everything you have been handing us is not only worthless, but flat out wrong?

     Ms. King, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree here.

165. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:57 am

     Wow ok let’s back up. And please put me in the first category if you must, I am a just a LAYMAN trying to figure this out and using every bit of resources I can find. I was the biggest skeptic you could ever meet, that’s why I have become so involved because I kept trying to disprove it and in the process became convinced, there’s just too much compelling evidence to ignore even if they don’t have everything a scientist like you needs at this time. And sure I think if you have a good product you can make money at it but I’m not willing to lose my soul over it! I want to be right, I want to help people, I have good ethics. But I’m a CPA with an MBA, I don’t know chemistry except what I’ve learned on my own and what I’ve deferred to people who are smarter than me who have examined this thoroughly and come to my same conclusions. Not people on blogs, people who are doctors and nurses and health advocates in my community, people who I know.

     Let’s just take one claim at a time then and forget about the athletics claims and metabolite testing which shows 44 out of 140 markers with positive improvement and no toxicity, just dismiss that all together! See these studies on antioxidant efficiency testing and white papers on bioactivity showing an increase of glutathione by 500-800%. Increasing our body’s production of these internal antioxidants is a good thing, surely we can agree on that point? So IF they show that glutathione is increased and IF we know that’s a good thing, THEN that could explain the crazy results people are reporting, and that can be duplicated by observing immediately with your own at-home burn testing on skin cells. Why are these antioxidant efficiency studies not credible? You have to start somewhere, nobody is going to pay for testing for your product, so yes they were performed tests in-house but that’s where everybody starts, even drug companies. We’re continuing with MORE studies, we’re working on it but do you have to be so negative at this early stage in the game? We’re paying for more tests, we’re trying to find the answers, the company is two years old! And they’ve already gone viral in that short amount of time and are available in 16 different countries, the strongest of which is Germany.
     http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Antioxidant_Efficiency_US_ENG.pdf
     http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/WhitePaperBioactivityUS_ENG.pdf

     And can you all please just refrain from calling me an idiot and help me understand? I’m trying to follow you. And I’m contacting NMR experts and sending emails all over the world trying to answer those completely ridiculous technical q’s, I WILL get those answers for nybgrus or die trying. That’s just completely out of MY purview unfortunately! But I’m willing to learn.

166. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 11:06 am

     I don’t work for corporate, I live in Lexington KY and my facebook is Tracy Powers King if you want to see my friends, interests, family, I am an open book. I don’t have a sales target to meet, I’m just trying to help people with their health challenges by showing them some other solutions besides pharmaceuticals. Not that there’s anything wrong with them, they have their place, but if you can give the body the tools to do its job more effectively then you can avoid those imbalances to begin with. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME! And those endorsements are credible, real people, a Guinness Book of World Record Holder who beat the world record of 20 by 10 more Ironman’s, that’s a 50% increase in performance and endurance, how do you explain that? I have a pdf of the patents I can send you, all the stuff on the internet has been adopted by associates so I can’t find the actual anymore but you can find enough of it here http://www.billjacques.com/scientific-proof/asea-patent/.

167. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 11:27 am

     As a layman, you appear to be missing the fact that genuine experts who know how NMR works are telling you that one of your tests is nonsense. That knowledge seems to be bypassing your frontal lobes completely. You are continuing to put up links to documents published by ASEA alone, which I have repeatedly said are worthless. You say you want to help people. You are not. You are selling them something unproven. You need to do some research into basic skepticism and alternative medicine. You need to read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell and Trick or Treatment by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh. You need to read other linsk on science based medicine about testimonials, anecdotes and the importance of appropriate controls. You need to inform youself from a source other than the company you work for. You need to learn how easy it is to fool yourself and justify past decisions with selective reasoning, which means reading Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

     I was the biggest skeptic you could ever meet

     I very much doubt that, or you’ve possibly sustained some sort of stroke since then. I woudl consult a neurologist if this is true. More likely, you think you are skeptical, or claim you are skeptical, without exhibiting any of the characteristics of genuine skepticism – being willing to admit you’ve made an error, questioning the information given to you, familiarize youself with the science behind the claims and perhaps think about switching careers. If you are actually a CPA, what would you think about someone who claimed they could triple your money with no risk in less than a month, but you just have to give them $1,000 cash, right now, and ask no questions? Because that’s the level of credibility ASEA holds right now. Who assumes the risk of the products, the company, or the sales person? Is that a good business model? And for whom, salesperson or company? You’ve got an MBA, you tell me.

168. # JJ Borgmanon 20 Dec 2012 at 11:38 am

     TracyKing,

     Just an observation: it seems you linked to a 2009 Patent Application on billjacques.com, not an actual patent. It is presented on your linked ASEA site to be a patent.

     That’s not very honest, IMO.

169. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 12:03 pm

     Let’s just take one claim at a time then and forget about the athletics claims and metabolite testing which shows 44 out of 140 markers with positive improvement and no toxicity

     How do you define toxicity? Was this in humans, or in test tubes? Are humans test tubes? Do test tubes possess multiple feedback systems which can actively control homeostasis?

     See these studies on antioxidant efficiency testing and white papers on bioactivity showing an increase of glutathione by 500-800%.

     These are proxy measures, there’s no guarantee that this results in meaningful effects. How do you know that merely increasing the amount or concentration of one substance is helpful? What are the long-term effects (assuming they actually occur in humans)? Does “bioactivity” mean “good”?

     Increasing our body’s production of these internal antioxidants is a good thing, surely we can agree on that point?

     This is an assumption on your part. Oxidants are used in multiple ways within the body, stopping all oxidation would kill us. Numerous antioxidants become pro-oxidants at certain concentrations. Large doses of vitamin C (an antioxidant) interferes with chemotherapy, a distinct negative side effect. And again, the body tightly controls the levels of many substances in the blood, including antioxidants. And this assumes that a) you are see real results, not experimental artifacts or simply made-up data, and b) these results are beneficial. So no, we can’t agree on that. Pseudoscientists and their proponents assume that medicine and biology are simple things, that blood levels of classes of compounds are like simple levers in a machine – pull on the lever and get a result. This is very much not the case.

     Why are these antioxidant efficiency studies not credible? You have to start somewhere, nobody is going to pay for testing for your product, so yes they were performed tests in-house but that’s where everybody starts, even drug companies.

     Yes, in-house testing is definitely a starting point. But ASEA has used it as a stopping point and the only thing they’ve started is direct sales to consumers. These studies are not credible because they are in-house, science advances by independent replication and extension, not by calling it a win when a couple test tubes go fizzy.

     We’re continuing with MORE studies, we’re working on it but do you have to be so negative at this early stage in the game? We’re paying for more tests, we’re trying to find the answers, the company is two years old! And they’ve already gone viral in that short amount of time and are available in 16 different countries, the strongest of which is Germany.

     Note that homeopathy is very popular in Germany, so perhaps not the best country to brag about.

     People here are negative because these are extraordinary claims that are not independently corroborated, but are used to sell the product. These claims fly in the face of what is known about biology, physiology and chemistry, and in fact physics since some of them sound like the spontaneous development of new atomic nuclei beyond the four found in the initial mixture (hydrogen, oxygen, sodium and chloride, the only ingredients on the bottle).

     And can you all please just refrain from calling me an idiot and help me understand? I’m trying to follow you. And I’m contacting NMR experts and sending emails all over the world trying to answer those completely ridiculous technical q’s, I WILL get those answers for nybgrus or die trying. That’s just completely out of MY purview unfortunately! But I’m willing to learn.

     You need to show evidence of learning. For instance, stop popping up links to in-house “studies”. I’ve made the point several times now – in-house studies are not reliable, nor are testimonials or anecdotes. Trying to use them as evidence after I’ve made this point indicates a) you aren’t understanding or b) you only want to use this venue as an opportunity to continue promoting a product – if you keep the conversation going, people will keep buying. Your basic starting point should be that you may be wrong. There’s a reason why real experts are skeptical and the only people who keep proclaiming it a miracle product are those selling it, or trying to justify spending $75 for a bottle of salt water. Please add to your reading list something on logical fallacies and cognitive biases; again Mistakes were made is a good starting point.

     I’m just trying to help people with their health challenges by showing them some other solutions besides pharmaceuticals.

     Why? Because pharmaceuticals have proof behind them? You’re again asking for a double-standard; drugs need proof, but my product does not. Do you think false hope or lies helps people with health challenges? And again consider my point about ethics – you’re either promoting a worthless product which is unproven, or your company’s failure to test the product in an open, scientific manner is preventing large numbers of people from benefiting. Either way, the ethical thing to do is to stop selling and start testing. The only reason why you would not do this is because the company is justifiably afraid of failing the tests and losing their ability to make money. Your company has lost its way, or is deliberately walking away from good science to make a buck.

     if you can give the body the tools to do its job more effectively

     Again, you don’t fucking know if this is happening. You’re claiming it is without any shred of reasonable evidence.

     IT MAKES SENSE TO ME! And those endorsements are credible, real people, a Guinness Book of World Record Holder who beat the world record of 20 by 10 more Ironman’s, that’s a 50% increase in performance and endurance, how do you explain that?

     Read Snake Oil Science, Bad Science, Trick or Treatment and Mistakes Were Made. Keep in mind, bloodletting made sense for two thousand years. Doctors saw visible, dramatic results. There were loads of testimonials. Do you support bloodletting? Ultimately someone took two groups, cut one and left the other alone, and kept track of who got better. That is pretty close all you need to do (throw in some blinding and control groups). But you’re not. Instead you’re relying on testimonials. I understand, you want to believe, but you are too easy to fool without the adequate experimental controls.

     I have a pdf of the patents I can send you, all the stuff on the internet has been adopted by associates so I can’t find the actual anymore but you can find enough of it here

     You do realize that a patent just provides intellectual property rights, don’t you? It says nothing about effectiveness. If you want to demonstrate medical effectiveness, the hurdle you need to overcome is FDA approval. Patents are barking up the wrong tree.

170. # nybgruson 20 Dec 2012 at 12:23 pm

     hmmm, seems my other comment is in moderation for some reason…

     anyways… it is funny how Ms. King keeps blathering on with the same useless stuff:

     I was the biggest skeptic you could ever meet, that’s why I have become so involved because I kept trying to disprove it and in the process became convinced, there’s just too much compelling evidence to ignore even

     Yet you also admit you have absolutely no background in any relevant science, can’t reconcile actual experts (btw, I am a Year 4 medical student and Gears is a professional synthetic chemist, never mind the fact that the author of this post is a fully qualified physician), and that “it just makes sense.” So which is it? Skeptic looking at evidence which you admit you can’t understand or a shill hawking for a product she can’t defend or someone who got suckered in and truly believes the nonsense despite how much evidence is actually against your claim?

     I mean seriously, you claim “compelling evidence” while at the same time saying you have no idea how to understand the relevent evidence!!

     And I’m contacting NMR experts and sending emails all over the world trying to answer those completely ridiculous technical q’s, I WILL get those answers for nybgrus or die trying.

     LOL. Thanks. I won’t hold my breath though. I’ve never had someone say they would do something for me “or die trying” though. Not sure how to feel about that.

     Lastly, we can say up front that any in-house, non peer reviewed “study” or youtube video of a talk by a paid ASEA representative at an ASEA sponsored “conference” simply is not evidence. We won’t consider it, because it is worthless to the conversation, especially with so many valid criticisms against the product at literally every single level of evidence imagineable.

171. # weingon 20 Dec 2012 at 12:32 pm

     @TracyKing,

     I suggest that you get a copy of Ben Goldacre’s Bad Pharma. See how study results can be manipulated. Then consider that Big Pharma doesn’t have a monopoly on these types of shenanigans.

172. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 12:35 pm

     I can’t afford to do testing myself, nor do I have the background or knowledge or time to do it, so yes I’m going to rely on the testing they have provided on their own product as something to go on but of course I thoroughly examined all their evidence and immersed myself in the research that exists that ASEA did not provide me and sought outside resources to help me examine the evidence. That’s what you do right? You don’t just summarily dismiss hypotheses, you use those as a basis for discussion and expand on them. I have read some of those books which is why I WAS the biggest skeptic, I’m not lying about that either, geez! In fact I wrote a scathing email to a bunch of networkers which is why I got the attention of someone at corporate who informed me I could be sued because I was being so aggressive in my condemnation of them (and MLM) so I got some individual attention and was able to get all my questions satisfactorily addressed. And actually if you do some due diligence on the MLM industry you will find that there is a curriculum being taught in reputable universities now. This industry has produced more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry including medicine, professional sports, law, accounting, Hollywood. It is attracting intelligent people because it leverages resources like company support, research, training, and people, and creates residual income… without massive amounts of overhead, startup costs, or know-how. It’s entrepreneurship at its best. I like my odds.

173. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 12:52 pm

     Sure, I get it nybgrus, I’m not a scientist like you but here’s what you’re missing… I don’t NEED empirical studies because I have seen the results in people I know whose lives have been PROFOUNDLY impacted by this product, this is WHY I’m able to take all this personal badgering. So what if you don’t think they have the right science to support the results, I think they do but let’s assume they don’t, they will find another route to prove it out, the results are what counts. I’m passionate about the RESULTS I’m seeing in ME and my FAMILY, these results cannot be discounted, I don’t need the WHY. The testimonials are a starting point for research and that is exactly what they are doing. This takes time. It costs $100m and 12 years for a DRUG to get through FDA approval for ONE indication which is why they did not choose to go down that route when it was already proving to have positive effects without toxicity on several complicated disease processes as backed up by clinical trials as if it was going through drug approval for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis and HIV which were listed on the patents.

     They have the VP of the ACSM doing testing for them, that’s more credible than ANY product in the MLM industry. They will never have studies on disease processes, that would be against the law if they tried to make a claim as I’m sure you’re well aware of. They are doing HEALTH studies instead of disease studies. They did not go down the pharmaceutical route on purpose despite 16 years and $16m in research with a pharmaceutical research company.

     I AM PASSIONATE BECAUSE I SUSPENDED MY DISBELIEF AND NOW I AM APPROACHING THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN EMOTIONAL FIRST-HAND MIRACLE-OBSERVER, THE REST WILL ALL COME IN TIME, I’M NOT WAITING. I’m sorry that people who read this will be swayed by you and will wait, but that’s how all great breakthroughs happen. I’m sure there were more than a few naysayers when somebody said moldy bread had anecdotal benefits.

174. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 12:57 pm

     I can’t afford to do testing myself, nor do I have the background or knowledge or time to do it

     Actually, you can. Get ASEA. Make a salt-water substitute that tastes the same (or as close as you can get it). You now have a placebo. Choose an outcome measure – best if it is objective. Get someone else to label your placebo and active intervention (salt water and ASEA respectively), recording which is which in such a way that you can check who got what after the fact, but can’t tell while you’re actually testing. Normally this consists of something known as an “envelope”. Get five people. Give them one or the other, recording which they got, then undertake your test and record the outcome measure. Wait a couple days. Repeat, this time giving them whatever they didn’t get in the first place. Compare. You’ve just conducted a preliminary trial – not very useful as your n (experimental group size) is low. If your results are truly as dramatic as you claim, hey, you might even have something you could publish!

     That’s the skeleton of an experimental trial. Keep increasing your n and you might have something respectable. The core ideas regarding clinical trials and testing are not particularly difficult to grasp. R. Barker Bausell’s Snake Oil Science goes into them in reasonable detail, but also lays out why they are important and what value each step adds.

     Nobody here is summarily dismissing the hypothesis, we are pointing out the flaws in the evidence, the conflict of interest and self-serving nature present with the current evidence, and the basic skepticism you are required to address before any reasonable scientist will take you seriously. You are making extraordinary claims – why should we believe them when your evidence is so poor? Why should we support people handing over money (and inflating hopes of the sick and desperate) in the face of such poor evidence? “Enriching the manufacturer”, “it provides jobs” and other broken-window type fallacies are certainly not enough, nor is “because it helps people”. At this point it looks like an expensive, self-serving way to “help” people who would be better served with real hope. At $75 a bottle, that’s a lot to pay for a placebo. Even homeopathy is at least relatively cheap.

     Incidentally, which of those books have you read?

     actually if you do some due diligence on the MLM industry you will find that there is a curriculum being taught in reputable universities now. This industry has produced more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry including medicine, professional sports, law, accounting, Hollywood. It is attracting intelligent people because it leverages resources like company support, research, training, and people, and creates residual income… without massive amounts of overhead, startup costs, or know-how. It’s entrepreneurship at its best. I like my odds.

     I’m sure it is, it’s a fantastically lucrative business model for the early-entrants. It just happens to be outrageously exploitive for subsequent entrants (and anyone with a conscience). Merely because a university is teaching about the topic doesn’t make this particular product effective, nor does it make the business model ethical, nor does it mean you’ll get rich.

     Also, for a skeptic you’re surprisingly unaware of the fact that “you can make millions” isn’t evidence that your product is effective. I will say it one more time – IF ASEA IS AS EFFECTIVE AS YOU CLAIM IT WOULD BE EASY TO DEMONSTRATE IN WELL-CONTROLLED TRIALS. Jumping over those easy to conduct trials is an enormous red flag that ASEA has ethical, scientific and empirical flaws. You are making extraordinary claims, you need to realize your evidence is not comparably extraordinary.

175. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 1:00 pm

     This industry has produced more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry including medicine, professional sports, law, accounting, Hollywood.

     With those sort of cipherin’ skills, I can see why you’re looking to get out of the CPA racket.

176. # Harriet Hallon 20 Dec 2012 at 1:03 pm

     Tracy is only a skeptic wannabe. She did question ASEA’s claims, but then she accepted testimonials and company propaganda without adequately questioning them (her skepticism had a double standard). She did not look into the possibility that there were other explanations for the testimonials: see Barry Beyerstein’s “Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html) and other considerations, for instance human psychology, basic science, and incorrect labeling. She allowed herself to be persuaded and is now deep into confirmation bias. My rule is before you accept a claim, try to find out who disagrees with it and why. She failed to do that and now it is too late because she has swallowed the Kool-Aid and is unable to process information that contradicts her beliefs.

     Rather than ridicule her for doing what comes naturally, what the human brain evolved to do well, we should be kind to the handicapped. Her thinking is handicapped by her lack of education in the critical thinking skills that must be learned to overcome our evolutionary flaws. I hope she will continue to read this blog and learn from it.

177. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 1:13 pm

     …I don’t NEED empirical studies because I have seen the results in people I know whose lives have been PROFOUNDLY impacted by this product, this is WHY I’m able to take all this personal badgering.

     The fact that you see this as a strength rather than a problem is in large part the reason why you are getting so much criticism here. I suggest, again, that you read Mistakes were made (but not by me).

     the results are what counts.

     Acutally, it’s less the results than what caused them. Look up the Hawthorne effect. Results are easy to get, it’s linking them to a specific intervention rather than nonspecific effects is what counts.

     It costs $100m and 12 years for a DRUG to get through FDA approval for ONE indication which is why they did not choose to go down that route when it was already proving to have positive effects without toxicity on several complicated disease processes as backed up by clinical trials as if it was going through drug approval for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis and HIV which were listed on the patents.

     A single drug being able to help in all those diseases is a red flag. Were these results show in objective measures (i.e. well-understood lab tests) or subjective measures (self-report or observation by company observers)? Were the anecdotes verified? Did you make an effort to find people who weren’t helped by ASEA? If 100 people use ASEA, 95 of them aren’t helped, but 5 got better simply because people often get better (at least over the short term), and ASEA gets sent five anecdotes – where do you think they come from? Do you think ASEA is honest enough to publish on their website someone saying “I tried ASEA and it didn’t do a damned thing for me”?

     They have the VP of the ACSM doing testing for them, that’s more credible than ANY product in the MLM industry.

     I was under the impression that ASEA was a part of the MLM industry.

     They will never have studies on disease processes, that would be against the law if they tried to make a claim as I’m sure you’re well aware of.

     And also requires inconvenient amounts of objectivity, verification and truth, I’m sure.

     I AM PASSIONATE BECAUSE I SUSPENDED MY DISBELIEF AND NOW I AM APPROACHING THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AN EMOTIONAL FIRST-HAND MIRACLE-OBSERVER, THE REST WILL ALL COME IN TIME, I’M NOT WAITING.

     And that, again, is why nobody here is taking you seriously. People were just as passionate that the Earth was flat, that bloodletting cured disease, that Zeus was responsible for lightning, that laetrile cured cancer, and that China was the centre of the universe. Ask Steve McQueen how that worked out for him. Your passion and unsubstantiated claims of efficacy are not remarkable. They’re not special. And above all, they are not convincing. Passion is not evidence, it is bias.

     I’m sorry that people who read this will be swayed by you and will wait, but that’s how all great breakthroughs happen. I’m sure there were more than a few naysayers when somebody said moldy bread had anecdotal benefits.

     Fucking really? I’m sorry, did Alexander Fleming look up from his lab dish and start leaving bread out to sell to the public? Or did he spend years testing and proving it worked? Wikipedia says Ancient Greeks and Indians used mouldy bread to treat infections, that Fleming dropped some bread in a petri dish in 1928. Mass production started in…1945. The difference being, of course, that instead of a bunch of claims that it helped, Fleming took the time to scientifically test it and publish the results. You want your miracle salt to cure the world? Test it, don’t sell it. Direct marketing without testing is flat-out unethical. Even if you are doing good, failure to test and publish the results means you are doing good on a far smaller scale than you could if you got an article published in JAMA.

178. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 1:49 pm

     This is from Dr. Gary Samuelson, the scientist in question, he got back with pretty quickly! Please do call him, what do you have to lose? That way you can talk scientist to scientist, he is talking to scientists from all around the world, he will not be offended by your disbelief, he hears it all the time.

     nybgrus and gears, can you please tell me if this helps answer your question at all? If not, what else do you need? And can you be as specific and brief as possible please? Thanks for your help!

     My Ph.D. research was on NMR of hyperolarized polycrytaline Xe129. I know the theory intimately and have even built NMR spectrometers, but do not have time to elucidate right now. The spectra shown is from P31 NMR in the DIPPMPO molecule, targeting the phosphate. The peaks represent the chemical shifts due to the attachment of two known adducts OH* and OOH* to DIPPMPO. These adducts are formed in the presence of superoxides. The peaks represent definitive evidence of the existence of stable superoxides in the product. The complexes that hold the superoxides stable are part of the redox signaling molecules in ASEA.
     -Gary

179. # weingon 20 Dec 2012 at 1:54 pm

     @Harriet,

     She also has skin in the game now, making it more difficult than ever to save face. It’s very difficult to realize and admit that you were stupid. It can and has been done.

180. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:02 pm

     William of course I have done thorough testing and picture taking and Visia scans of complexion analysis… and I got caught up in that at the beginning but what I found was that it didn’t help, in fact it hurt, because that’s what everybody thought THEY had to to do too. I’ve got an ASEA album of pics on my facebook and I still take pics, as do many other reps, but it just doesn’t seem to carry any weight with people like you and I’m not trying to attract people like you anyway. And I read “Bad Science,” as if that matters.

     I’m as much of a skeptic as someone outside of academia can be. Anyone who knows me can tell you that it is to my detriment, as evidenced by how much time I’ve wasted arguing with people who cannot be swayed in the hopes that it will help people who are just like me, take a closer look and not just dismiss this as salt water after the see the headline… that IS exactly what people are doing, you have to know that. They don’t even read the comments they just send me the link as their “smoking gun.” I have immersed myself in glutathione studies, antioxidant efficacy as well as studying the industry… whereas most people in this industry can just start talking to people and building a strong business with blinders on! I WISH that was me!

     And it’s $30/bottle not $75, which lasts 8 days. A month’s supply is $120 on autoship and that’s enough for 2 ounces bid. And I’ll say it again, they are working on several trials right now and they will have a published study in a peer-reviewed journal in April. Let’s talk then.

181. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:31 pm

     that’s enough for 2 ounces bid

     You are on very thin ice using language such as this.

182. # Steven Novellaon 20 Dec 2012 at 2:48 pm

     “I don’t NEED empirical studies because I have seen the results in people I know whose lives have been PROFOUNDLY impacted by this product”

     This is a profoundly naive statement. We do need empirical studies, because you cannot trust the results you think you have seen. Anecdotes are overwhelmed by placebo effects and confirmation bias. We have been here a thousand times before – fantastical claims, dodgy science, and nothing but anecdotes. There is absolutely no reason to think that this time the claims are real.

     The image of Charlie Brown kicking a football comes to mind.

183. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 3:48 pm

     And I’ll say it again, they are working on several trials right now and they will have a published study in a peer-reviewed journal in April.

     I skipped this previously. Speaking as someone with substantial experience in journals publishing, I am confident in informing you that this statement in and of itself badly undercuts your credibility. If this were a paper submitted to a journal, the publication date would not yet exist. If it had been submitted and accepted, you could (1) identify it and (2) explain a four-month lead time from acceptance, which, given that high impact factors and hence clogged pipelines are right out, implies a seriously backwater operation, a commissioned special issue, or both.

184. # nybgruson 20 Dec 2012 at 5:00 pm

     Of course all the critiques by WLU, narad, Dr. Novella, Dr. Hall, et al are spot on.

     nybgrus and gears, can you please tell me if this helps answer your question at all? If not, what else do you need? And can you be as specific and brief as possible please? Thanks for your help!

     For me it doesn’t help at all. Perhaps Gears can comment if it does. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since it was just now that my comment came out of moderation but the crux is that the ROS/RS species purported to exist in the literature you have provided are not the same as the ones the NMR spectra appears to show. I don’t care if Samuelson has built NMR machines, designed them from the ground up, or can use magical lasers in his eyes to just look at a compound and get the NMR spectra – the data shown in the video does not match the data purported in the studies.

     And before you get too excited thinking that settling that issue will fix the problem here (well, in addition to every other critique leveled thus far) even if the NMR data matched the “literature,” those ions/ROS/RS being present don’t fix the problem either – there is no known biological mechanism by which these molecular species would induce the extremely varied and universally beneficial changed ASEA purports to do.

185. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 5:36 pm

     I’m not saying read Bad Science the webpage, I’m saying read Bad Science the book (by Ben Goldacre, though the excellent one by Gary Taubes on cold fusion could also be instructive), which provides much material similar to his website, but in greater depth (and if I recall correctly, he goes into a couple general reasons why regular experts are better than fake ones, and the basics of scientific testing including controls). Even if you have read Bad Science, website or either of the books, you apparently didn’t absorb the lessons it attempts to impart.

     I’m as much of a skeptic as someone outside of academia can be.

     Academia and skepticism, sadly, don’t necessarily overlap. One does not have to be a scientist to question extremely improbable claims, like salt water magically forming hitherto-unrecognized redox compounds that will cure all diseases and survive passage through the digestive tract. One merely needs to ask whether something is too good to be true and on the balance of probabilities, whether perhaps the someone might be fibbing to make a quick buck.

     Anyone who knows me can tell you that it is to my detriment, as evidenced by how much time I’ve wasted arguing with people who cannot be swayed in the hopes that it will help people who are just like me, take a closer look and not just dismiss this as salt water after the see the headline… that IS exactly what people are doing, you have to know that.

     Do you know why it’s been a waste of time? Because you have no real evidence. You think you do, but you don’t understand why you don’t. If you actually understood the scientific process and how medicine, healing and placebo works, you wouldn’t be here.

     Again I go back to – would you give money to someone who promised to triple it risk-free within 30 days as long as they are paid in cash in increments of $1000 per share?

     They don’t even read the comments they just send me the link as their “smoking gun.” I have immersed myself in glutathione studies, antioxidant efficacy as well as studying the industry… whereas most people in this industry can just start talking to people and building a strong business with blinders on! I WISH that was me!

     Oh, honey. That is you, you’re just pretending the blinders are flashlights.

     Please post a link to a peer-reviewed journal article that shows your magic salt water in any way influences glutathione. Step two would be showing it has these effects in rats, step three is in humans, and step for is in humans after oral consumption. Then you are ready to start a phase II controlled trials (phase III? Which one is where you’re actually using sick people?).

     And it’s $30/bottle not $75, which lasts 8 days. A month’s supply is $120 on autoship and that’s enough for 2 ounces bid. And I’ll say it again, they are working on several trials right now and they will have a published study in a peer-reviewed journal in April. Let’s talk then.

     Claiming that a bottle is $30 instead of $75, for 8 days ($4 per day for salt water? Really?) is merely proving that when someone is ripped off, it’s for slightly less money. You’re still selling people salt water and claiming it’s got magical healing with no actual proof. If Bernie Madoff had only ripped people off for a couple hundred million dollars instead of several billion, does that mean he’s less guilty, or his actions somehow pardonable?

     Please, stop calling yourself skeptical until you know what the word means.

186. # nybgruson 20 Dec 2012 at 6:02 pm

     Now, now WLU.

     It is actually reasonable to expect that ROS would affect glutathione. It is one of our antioxidant molecules after all – you know, to stop oxidative damage from free radicals generated during oxidative level phosphorylation.

     Of course, that still doesn’t address how ingesting ROS would do that in any physiologically meaninful way and it is at odds with all the anti-oxidant mumbo jumbo people seem to still love, but hey, what are we here? Medical scientists?

     Come on man, just go with the flow and feel the vibe, man. It’s all good. Just spread some love because this agression will not stand, man.

187. # nybgruson 20 Dec 2012 at 6:04 pm

     Dangit, second link is copy of first.

     This agression will not stand, man

188. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 7:26 pm

     A month’s supply is $120 on autoship and that’s enough for 2 ounces bid.

     You are on very thin ice using language such as this.

     I hope the ice cracks.

     As a consumer, if I were to believe the ASEA ads and testimonials being promoted by licensed medical professionals as well as people like Tracy King, then I could spray ASEA on my cuts and wounds to speed their healing. People and pets with gum problems could spray it in their mouth and like magic, their periodontal problems would resolve. Spray it in your eyes, and improve your vision. No more tinnitus, no more need for antidepressants. Taking ASEA for six months would enable me to stop taking blood pressure medication. If someone is vomiting from potential food poisoning, I could successfully treat them with 6 ounces of ASEA. ASEA claims “This is REAL “health insurance”" and that people have even successfully used ASEA to treat small masses.

     I’m starting to see the problem here – you skeptic Docs and scientists will all be out of a job soon, because ASEA will cure all diseases. It’s a conspiracy – you just feel threatened.

     If I were to believe the promos, those unfortunate hospice patients could simply bounce back to health simply by taking ASEA @ “2 ounces bid”. That sounds like ASEA is indeed being marketed as a drug, especially when such claims are also being made by physicians.

     My goodness, what it must be like to see a dying person, laying in hospice care, sick and lonely and afraid, desperate and so wanting to live and love again. And then to have an ASEA sales rep enter the room and tell them that they can indeed extend their life and regain their health – the path to wellness is ASEA. I ask you, what kind of sick and twisted medical predator would do this to hospice patients? In my opinion, that should earn a felony for the sales rep.

189. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 7:50 pm

     @JJ Borgman, here is the patent information, it was just quicker to do a google search, I’m sorry.
     PATENT INFORMATION AT LINK: HTTP://WWW.FAQS.ORG/PATENTS/APP/20090110749

     Method and apparatus for producing a stabilized antimicrobial non-toxic electrolyzed
     Saline solution exhibiting potential as a therapeutic – Patent application

     Patent application title: Method and apparatus for producing a stabilized
     antimicrobial non-toxic electrolyzed saline solution exhibiting potential as a
     therapeutic

     Inventors: Verdis Norton Gary L. Samuelson

     Agents: MARCUS G THEODORE, PC

     Assignees: Medical Management Research, Inc.

     Origin: SALT LAKE CITY, UT US

     IPC8 Class: AA61K3340FI

     USPC Class: 424616

     Abstract:

     An improved method and apparatus is disclosed for producing a stable, non-toxic,
     antimicrobial electrolyzed saline solution with a broad range of anti-infective
     and therapeutic applications. The resulting solution is balanced to normal and
     hypertonic saline and has been shown to exhibit remarkable antimicrobial,
     antiviral and therapeutic characteristics. The nature of this solution makes it
     suitable for applications in food safety, animal health, agriculture and
     sterilization. The solution also exhibits a marked lack of toxicity upon
     intravenous, aspired, oral or topical application in mammals. The therapeutic
     applications represent a broad platform, possibly covering a variety of
     potential areas of use, including topical disinfection, antimicrobial
     application, wound treatment, oxidative stress reduction and enhancement of
     immune function to better detect malfunctioning cells.

     Claims:

     1. A method for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species
     (ROS), comprising:a. preparing a saline solution having a saline concentration
     of at least about 0.15%,b. inserting within the saline solution an inert anode
     and a spaced apart corresponding inert cathode associated with a power source,c.
     regulating the temperature of the saline solution to maintain a solution
     temperature sufficient to prevent production of chlorates and regulate relative
     concentrations of resulting components during electrolysis,d. circulating the
     saline solution to maintain a flow of the saline solution between the anode and
     cathode, ande. applying an effective voltage potential less than about thirty
     volts between the cathode and the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture
     of chemically reduced and oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl),
     Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine
     (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to 200 ppm and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide
     (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding
     amounts of Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50
     ppm, Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-, Hydroxides
     (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen
     Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-), and total ROS between 0.05 to 50 ppm, utilizing
     electron and proton donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport; the temperature,
     anode and cathode spacing, saline solution circulation rate, and effective
     voltage combination selected to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies and
     stable specie compositions containing stable ROS compounds while preventing
     production of chlorates.

     2. A stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline solution exhibiting
     anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a therapeutic containing
     regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS), comprising a balanced
     mixture of chemically reduced and oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid
     (HOCl), Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine
     (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to 200 ppm and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide
     (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding
     amounts of Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50
     ppm, Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides
     (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen
     Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-), and total stable ROS compounds between 0.05 to
     50 ppm.

     3. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal, comprising:a. preparing a
     saline solution having a saline concentration of at least about 0.15%,b.
     inserting within the saline solution an inert anode and a spaced apart
     corresponding inert cathode associated with a power source,c. regulating the
     temperature of the saline solution to maintain a solution temperature sufficient
     to prevent production of chlorates and regulate relative concentrations of
     resulting components during electrolysis,d. circulating the saline solution to
     maintain a flow of the saline solution between the anode and cathode, ande.
     applying an effective voltage potential less than about thirty volts between the
     cathode and the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture of chemically
     reduced and oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), Hypochlorites
     (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to
     200 ppm and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2),
     Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding amounts of
     Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50 ppm,
     Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides (NaOH,
     OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species
     (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-), and total ROS between 0.05 to 50 ppm, utilizing
     electron and proton donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport; the temperature,
     anode and cathode spacing, saline solution circulation rate, and effective
     voltage combination selected to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies and
     stable specie compositions containing stable ROS compounds while preventing
     production of chlorates, andf. administering the electrolyzed saline solution
     balanced mixture to a human or warm-blooded animal for therapeutic use to attack
     infective microbes and enhance the ability of the immune system to recognize and
     destroy damaged or malfunctioning cells.

     4. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm blooded-animal according to claim 3,
     wherein the electrolyzed saline solution balanced mixture is administered by
     injection, oral or anal ingestion, applied topically, used as a bath, applied in
     a wound dressing, or inhaled in atomized form.

     5. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
     wherein the saline solution balanced mixture is placed in container means
     fabricated from a biologically compatible material.

     6. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm blooded-animal according to claim 3,
     wherein the anode is made of a base metal selected from the group consisting of
     platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with platinum bonding and is
     coated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the base metal.

     7. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 6,
     wherein the anode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar) shaped structure.

     8. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
     wherein the cathode is positioned coaxially or in parallel in relation to the
     anode.

     9. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
     wherein the cathode is made of a base metal selected from the group consisting
     of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with platinum bonding and
     is plated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the base metal.

     10. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 7,
     wherein the cathode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar) shaped structure.

     11. A method for using a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed saline
     solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential for use as an
     in vivo treatment for a human or warm-blooded animal according to claim 3,
     wherein the spacing between the cathode and the anode is less than about one
     inch.

     12. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species
     (ROS), comprising:a. a container filled with a saline solution having a saline
     concentration of at least about 0.15%,b. an inert anode and a spaced apart
     corresponding inert cathode placed within the saline solution,c. a temperature
     regulator for regulating the temperature of the saline solution to maintain a
     solution temperature sufficient to prevent production of chlorates and regulate
     relative concentrations of resulting components during electrolysis,d.
     circulation means associated with the container for circulating the saline
     solution to maintain a flow of the saline solution between the anode and
     cathode,e. a power source associated with the anode and cathode to apply an
     effective voltage potential less than about thirty volts between the cathode and
     the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture of chemically reduced and
     oxidized species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-,
     NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine (Cl.sub.2) between 1 to 200 ppm and
     Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions
     (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding amounts of Superoxides
     (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3) from 1 to 50 ppm, Activated Hydrogen
     ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet
     Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (*OCl,
     *HO.sup.-), and total ROS between 0.05 to 50 ppm, utilizing electron and proton
     donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport; the temperature, anode and cathode
     spacing, saline solution circulation rate, and effective voltage combination
     selected to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies and stable specie
     compositions containing stable ROS compounds while preventing production of
     chlorates.

     13. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
     according to claim 12, wherein the container is fabricated from a biologically
     compatible material.

     14. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
     according to claim 12, wherein the anode is made of a base metal selected from
     the group consisting of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with
     platinum bonding and is coated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the
     base metal.

     15. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
     according to claim 14, wherein the anode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar)
     shaped structure.

     16. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
     according to claim 15, wherein the cathode has a cylindrical, or flat (planar)
     shaped structure and is positioned coaxially or in parallel in relation to the
     anode.

     17. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
     according to claim 16, wherein the cathode is made of a base metal selected from
     the group consisting of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with
     platinum bonding and is plated with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the
     base metal.

     18. An apparatus for producing a stable, non-toxic, antimicrobial electrolyzed
     saline solution exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS)
     according to claim 12, wherein the spacing between the cathode and the anode is
     less than one inch and is dependent upon ion transfer rates and electric fields
     to achieve desired electrolysis efficiencies to produce different varieties of
     solution components all containing stable ROS compounds.
     Description:

     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

     [0001]1. Field

     [0002]This invention pertains to an electrolytic method and apparatus for
     producing electrolyzed saline redox-balanced solutions. More particularly, it
     pertains to a method and apparatus used to produce a stable, non-toxic,
     antimicrobial electrolyzed saline redox-balanced solution from pure saline or
     hypertonic saline (NaCl and H.sub.2O), both referred to hereafter as saline
     solution, exhibiting anti-infective and immune-enhancing potential as a
     therapeutic employing a balanced mixture of chemically reduced and oxidized
     species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl), Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO),
     dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine (Cl.sub.2) and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases,
     Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2), Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO)
     and corresponding amounts of Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone
     (O.sub.3), Activated Hydrogen ions (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-),
     Hydroxides (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen (*O.sub.2) and other forms of
     Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-).

     [0003]2. Prior Art

     [0004]Electrolysis of saline solutions has long been used to produce
     antimicrobial solutions that are compatible with mammalian biology. Some
     examples include methods to produce chlorinated water, bleach and hydrogen
     peroxide. Typically, the methods and apparatus used to electrolyze these
     solutions employ ion-selective barriers between the electrodes in order to
     efficiently isolate the target molecules and eliminate unwanted byproducts. A
     fundamentally different method and apparatus for producing a non-toxic
     antimicrobial electrolyzed saline solution is disclosed in eight United States
     patents, and two Japanese patents and a Mexican patent based on these U.S.
     patents, all held by the applicant, covering various other applications for
     intravenous injected electrolyzed saline solution (named MDI-P) the machinery
     that manufactures it and the method by which it is manufactured. These U.S.
     patents are as follows:

     [0005]U.S. Pat. No. 5,334,383, Morrow, dated Aug. 2,
     1994 entitled [0006]“Electrically Hydrolyzed Salines as In Vivo Microbicides for
     Treatment of Cardiomyopathy and Multiple Sclerosis.” This patent covers a method
     of treating antigen related infections related to cardiomyopathy and multiple
     sclerosis in humans and other warm blooded animals. It does not cover the MDI-P
     Substance itself, but covers a particular use of the substance. This method of
     treatment includes the use of an electrolyzed saline solution in conjunction
     with one or more modulating agents such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), with or
     without concurrent colchicine, to mimic or enhance the body’s naturally
     occurring immune response to bacterial, viral or fungal infection. The duration
     of this patent is until Aug. 2, 2011, subject to patent term extension for
     clinical trial time.

     [0007]U.S. Pat. No. 5,507,932, dated Apr. 16, 1996 entitled
     [0008]“Apparatus for Electrolyzing Fluids.” This patent covers equipment that
     exposes a liquid solution to an electrical current, creating an electrolyzed
     solution. This equipment may be used to produce an electrolyzed saline solution,
     capable of killing bacterial, viral and fungal agents, for use in medical
     applications such as the treatment of antigen related infections in humans and
     other warm blooded animals. This patent covers the equipment used to produce
     MDI-P, not the substance itself. The duration of this patent is until Aug. 26,
     2014.

     [0009]U.S. Pat. No. 5,560,816, Robinson, dated Oct. 1, 1996 entitled
     [0010]“Method for Electrolyzing Fluids.” This patent covers a method for
     electrolyzing fluids, by using specialized equipment to expose liquid solutions
     to an electrical current. Saline, for example, may be treated by this process to
     yield an electrolyzed saline solution, capable of killing bacterial, viral and
     fungal agents, for the treatment of antigen related infection in humans and
     other warm blooded animals. This patent covers the method by which MDI-P is
     produced, not the substance itself. The duration of this patent is until Aug.
     26, 2014, subject to patent term extension for clinical trial time.

     [0011]U.S.
     Pat. No. 5,622,848, Morrow, dated Apr. 22, 1997 entitled [0012]“Electrically
     Hydrolyzed Saline Solutions As Microbicides For In Vitro Treatment Of
     Contaminated Fluids Containing Blood.” This patent covers a method of treating
     whole blood and other blood products with an electrolyzed saline solution to
     reduce infection with bacterial, viral and fungal agents. This patent covers a
     particular use of MDI-P, not substance itself. The duration of this patent is
     until Apr. 22, 2014, subject to patent term extension for clinical trial time.

     [0013]U.S. Pat. No. 5,674,537, Morrow, dated Oct. 7, 1997 entitled [0014]“An
     Electrolyzed Saline Solution Containing Concentrated Amounts Of Ozone And
     Chlorine Species.” This patent covers a specific electrolyzed saline solution
     containing a regulated amount of microbicidal agents including ozone and active
     chlorine species. This solution is intended for use in the treatment of
     infections in the body of humans and other warm blooded animals, or in blood or
     blood products. This patent covers the MDI-P substance. The duration of this
     patent is until Oct. 7, 2014, subject to patent term extension for clinical
     trial time.

     [0015]U.S. Pat. No. 5,731,008, Morrow, dated Mar. 24, 1998 entitled
     [0016]“Electrically Hydrolyzed Salines as Microbicides.” This patent covers a
     method of using a specific electrolyzed saline solution containing a regulated
     amount of microbicidal agents including ozone and active chlorine species for
     the treatment of microbial infections, including HIV infection. The method
     includes intravenous administration of the solution along with one or more
     modulating agents such ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), with or without concurrent
     colchicine. This patent covers a method for using MDI-P, not the substance
     itself. The duration of this patent is until May 23, 2010, subject to patent
     term extension for clinical trial time.

     [0017]U.S. Pat. No. 6,007,686, Welch et
     al, dated Dec. 28, 1999 entitled [0018]“System for Electrolyzing Fluids for Use
     as Antimicrobial Agents.” This patent covers a system for electrolyzing fluids,
     such as a saline solution, for use in sterilizing dental and medical instruments
     and other health care equipment. The patent covers the necessary equipment for
     generating and circulating the electrolyzed saline solution around the
     instruments to be sterilized, and includes specific claims for equipment
     designed for use with dental drill hand pieces and flexible tubing. This patent
     covers a process by which MDI-P may be made for a particular use, not the
     substance itself. The duration of this patent is until Aug. 26, 2014.

     [0019]U.S.
     Pat. No. 6,117,285, Welch et al, dated Sep. 12, 2000 entitled [0020]“System for
     Carrying Out Sterilization of Equipment.” This patent covers a system for
     cleaning and sterilizing medical and dental instruments to prevent the spread of
     infection from one patient to another. The covered system bathes the instrument
     in an electrolyzed saline solution and causes the solution to flow into and
     sterilize any openings in the equipment. It includes specific claims for systems
     designed specifically for the sterilization of dental drills and flexible
     tubing. This patent covers a particular use of MDI-P, not the substance itself.
     The duration of this patent is until Aug. 26, 2014.

     [0021]The two Japanese and
     one Mexican patents provide corresponding coverage in those countries for
     several of the U.S. patents. Applicant also has pending applications with the US
     Patent and Trademark Office for patents on MDI-P as a pharmaceutical treatment
     for cystic fibrosis, sepsis and asthma.

     [0022]The above embodiments of these prior patents typically have produced
     measurably different variations of electrolyzed saline solution. Each variation,
     however, exhibited some antimicrobial action and many of these devices produced
     solutions with measurable amounts of the components (chlorine, pH, ozone, etc.)
     within the range of the disclosed regulated amounts. The resulting electrolyzed
     saline compositions, however, have not historically been satisfactorily
     consistent or controllable, specifically regarding the concentrations of
     Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS). In addition, these prior inventions could produce
     toxic chemicals (chlorates) in the process of electrolyzing the saline solution.
     Consequently, there is a need for an improved manufacturing method and
     apparatus, such as that described below, to consistently produce solutions
     suitable for therapeutic applications in humans and warm-blooded animals.

     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

     [0023]The improved method and apparatus described below provides an improved
     electrolyzing fluid containing regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen
     species (ROS) particularly suited for stable, non-toxic antimicrobial
     applications and to aid the immune system in identifying and destroying
     malfunctioning cells. The invention comprises a method for making an
     electrolyzed saline solution for use as an in vivo treatment of a human or
     warm-blooded animal. Specifically, it comprises:

     [0024]a. placing a saline solution having a saline concentration of at least
     about 0.15% within a container,

     [0025]b. activating a fluid circulation device to maintain a flow of the saline
     solution between the electrode surfaces,

     [0026]c. adjusting the temperature of the circulating saline at a preferred
     level to prevent production of chlorates and regulate the relative
     concentrations of resulting components

     [0027]d. placing in the saline solution an anode and a cathode associated with a
     power source, and

     [0028]e. applying an effective voltage potential less than about thirty volts
     between the cathode and the anode sufficient to produce a balanced mixture of
     chemical redox balanced species including Hypochlorous acid (HOCl),
     Hypochlorites (OCl.sup.-, NaClO), dissolved Oxygen (O.sub.2), Chlorine
     (Cl.sub.2) and Hydrogen (H.sub.2) gases, Hydrogen Peroxide (H.sub.20.sub.2),
     Hydrogen ions (H.sup.+), Hypochloride (ClO) and corresponding amounts of
     Superoxides (*O.sub.2.sup.-, HO.sub.2), Ozone (O.sub.3), Activated Hydrogen ions
     (H.sup.-), Chloride ions (Cl.sup.-), Hydroxides (NaOH, OH.sup.-), Singlet Oxygen
     (*O.sub.2) and other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (*OCl, *HO.sup.-)
     utilizing electron and proton donation, ion and dissolved-gas transport to
     produce a specific redox balanced set of molecules and ions. This redox-balanced
     set of molecules and ions in combination are a potent anti-infective and help
     the immune system identify and destroy malfunctioning cells.

     [0029]This electrolyzed saline solution is then administered to a human or
     warm-blooded animal for therapeutic use. Preferably, the electrolyzed saline
     solution is administered by injection, oral or anal ingestion, applied
     topically, used as a bath, applied in a wound dressing, or inhaled in atomized
     form.

     [0030]The container for producing the electrolyzed saline solutions is
     fabricated from a biologically compatible material. In addition, the anode is
     made of a base metal selected from the group consisting of platinum, niobium,
     titanium or any metal compatible with platinum bonding with an outer layer of
     platinum bonded to the base metal. The shape of the anode has a cylindrical, or
     flat (planar) shaped structure. The anode is preferably permeable to fluid flow.

     [0031]Usually the cathode is positioned coaxially or in parallel in relation to
     the anode. This cathode is made of a base metal selected from the group
     consisting of platinum, niobium, titanium or any metal compatible with platinum
     bonding with an outer layer of platinum bonded to the base metal and has a
     cylindrical, or flat (planar) shaped structure similar to that of the anode and
     is also preferably permeable to fluid flow.

     [0032]The spacing between the surfaces of the cathode and the anode is typically
     not greater than about one inch. This invention has means to circulate and
     regulate the temperature of fluids during production, has appropriate electrode
     design and has methods that effectively stabilize the composition of the
     resulting solution.

     [0033]The temperature, fluid flow and effective voltage are chosen as to
     eliminate production of chlorates and to create the desired mixture of
     components. These parameters are determined by experimentation. The resulting
     solution is consistently stable and suitable for in vivo therapeutic
     applications. The stable ROS concentration, for example, has a variation of less
     than 5% from batch to batch and from device to device when the same set of
     parameters are employed by each.

     [0034]The effective voltage may be applied by direct current, alternating
     current, or various combinations of alternating current and direct current power
     sources, resulting in a combined effective voltage ranging anywhere between 0
     and 30 volts. The effective voltage is chosen to eliminate the production of
     chlorates and to create the desired mixture of components containing stable ROS.
     For example, a typical temperature range of the saline solution is from 30 deg.
     F. to 100 deg. F. In the lower temperature range, less O.sub.2 is absorbed by
     the fluid and the fluid has smaller electrical conductivity, therefore higher
     effective voltages can be utilized to maintain adequate electrical current
     required to provide regulated amounts of stable ROS without significantly
     increasing the probability of creating chlorates and while maintaining a pH of
     7.2 to 7.5.

     [0035]The effective voltage may be adjusted, as desired, to regulate the
     concentration of the components and the pH of the resulting solution over a
     large variety of temperatures and fluid flows. Wherein it is difficult to
     theoretically determine the concentrations of all the various resulting chemical
     components when given any specific set of parameters, the optimal effective
     voltage, fluid temperature and flow are determined by experimentation. This
     methodology allows for the intentional regulation of concentrations of the
     specific chemical components in these stable ROS enriched solutions, allowing
     for the optimization of solutions intended for specific purposes.

     [0036]The method and apparatus thus provides a stable, ROS enriched,
     antimicrobial, non-toxic electrolyzed saline solutions, hereinafter referred to
     as Reoxcyn, with a specific redox-balanced set of molecules and ions in solution
     that has the ability to attack infective microbes and enhances the ability of
     the immune system to recognize and destroy damaged or malfunctioning cells.

     [0037]Reoxcyn solutions are balanced to normal and hypertonic saline and have
     been shown through extensive, repeatable research by accredited laboratories to
     be stable, non-toxic and exhibit remarkable antimicrobial, antiviral and
     therapeutic characteristics. Besides the therapeutic applications, the nature of
     these solutions also makes them suitable for applications in food safety, animal
     health, agriculture and sterilization. The solutions exhibit a marked lack of
     toxicity upon intravenous, aspired, oral or topical application in mammals.

     [0038]Reoxcyn solutions provide a broad platform for anti-infective and
     therapeutic applications covering several potential areas of use, including
     topical disinfection, antimicrobial application, wound treatment, oxidative
     stress reduction and enhancement of immune function. Reoxcyn solutions, being
     that they contain regulated amounts of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS), are
     particularly suited for enhancing the ability of the immune system to recognize
     and destroy damaged or malfunctioning cells. Such solutions can also be
     administered in a number of different ways appropriate for the desired
     therapeutic application.

     [0039]Furthermore, all of the molecular components found in these solutions are
     involved in a growing field of scientific investigation categorized as redox
     messaging and regulation of genes. Such molecular components, being a balanced
     set of reduced species (RS) and reactive oxygen species (ROS), are the same
     molecules and ions that mirror those found in biological systems and are
     intimately involved in the ability of the immune system to recognize, detect,
     eliminate and heal infected, damaged or mutated tissues in mammals.

     [0040]The measurement of concentrations of ROS inside the solutions has been
     done by means of a fluorospectrometer, Nanodrop 3300, and three varieties of
     fluorescent dyes, R-Phycoerytherin (R-PE), Hydroxyphenyl fluorescein (HPF) and
     Aminophenyl fluorescein (APF), that are commonly used to determine relative ROS
     concentrations inside active biological systems and cells. The molecules in
     these dyes change shape, and therefore fluoresce only when exposed to molecular
     components in ROS. The resulting change in fluorescence can then be detected by
     the fluorospectrometer and can be related to the concentration of ROS present.
     ROS concentrations in Reoxcyn are verified and detected by either APF or R-PE
     fluorescent dyes, both of which produce entirely consistent measurements of
     relative concentrations of ROS in various concentrations and dilutions of
     Reoxcyn. Dr. James Clagett has linked the ROS measurements in Reoxcyn, using
     R-PE fluorescent dye, to the reaction of this dye to regulated concentrations of
     2/2′-Axobis(2-methylpropionamide)dihidrochloride, a molecule that produces known
     amounts of ROS. This is not an absolute measurement, but it relates ROS in
     Reoxcyn it to amounts of a known producer of ROS.

     [0041]These fluorescent dyes are often used in combination with a fluorescence
     microscope to create high-resolution images of the build-up of ROS (oxidative
     stress) inside individual living cells. These dyes have been shown to
     specifically be sensitive to concentrations of ROS regardless of complex
     surrounding chemical environments.

     [0042]Although APF and R-PE dyes are capable of measuring relative ROS
     concentrations in Reoxcyn, no known absolute standard concentration for
     stabilized ROS in pure saline solutions exists. Furthermore, discrepancies in
     the decay time of these fluorescent dyes make measuring standardized amounts of
     ROS in other solutions incompatible with measuring those found in Reoxcyn. This
     may be due, in part, to the molecular complexes in Reoxcyn that keep the ROS
     concentration stable, effectively shielding the free radicals from readily
     reacting with the dyes. The standard for ROS concentration in Reoxcyn is
     therefore measured relative to the ROS concentration in a standardized solution
     that has been used in all of the antimicrobial and toxicity studies to date,
     both published and unpublished. Methods to measure absolute ROS concentrations
     in Reoxcyn are actively being pursued.

     [0043]The regulated amounts of ROS, thus measured, inside a variety of the
     Reoxcyn solutions produced by various embodiments of this invention have been
     shown to be stable, consistent and predictable, sufficient for therapeutic
     applications.

     DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

     [0044]FIG. 1 is a side view of one preferred embodiment of the invention.

     [0045]FIG. 2 is a top view of the preferred embodiment of the invention shown in
     FIG. 1.

     DESCRIPTION OF THE ILLUSTRATED EMBODIMENTS

     [0046]FIG. 1 is a side view of an embodiment of the invention. It has a
     container 101, which holds a saline solution having a saline concentration of at
     least about 0.15% to 1.0% by weight. The container may be fitted with a lid 100.
     The container 101 has a cylindrical anode 101a and a surrounding concentric
     cylindrical cathode 101b positioned on its bottom 105. The anode 101a and
     cathode 101b are operably associated with a power supply 107. The power supply
     107 provides a source of electrical current with an effective voltage of under
     30 volts via wires 106 affixed to the anode 101a and a cathode 101b.

     [0047]The anode 101a is a mesh cylindrical ring comprised of titanium with an
     outer layer of platinum bonded to the titanium base. The cathode 101b is a
     cylindrical mesh ring comprised of titanium with an outer layer of platinum
     bonded to the titanium base that is positioned coaxially about the anode 101a.
     The spacing between the cathode 101b and the anode 101a, at the preferred flow
     rate below, is typically not greater than about one inch. Moreover, the
     effective voltage potential between the cathode 101b and the anode 101a is not
     greater than a preferred amount, typically under 30 volts.

     [0048]A temperature regulation device, such as a combination heating/cooling
     device, is positioned along the sides 104 inside the container 101 to exchange
     heat with the saline solution in order to maintain the saline solution at a
     desired temperature between 30 deg. F. to 100 deg. F.

     [0049]A circulation tube 102 is mounted on the exterior of the container 101
     with openings connecting and in communication with the top and bottom interior
     of the container 101. The circulation tube 102 is associated with a fluid pump
     103 to provide for fluid circulation and flow inside the container 101. This
     allows saline solution in the container 101 to flow through the anode 101a and
     cathode 101b assembly at a preferred flow rate, typically between 0.1 to 50
     cc/cm.sup.2/sec.

     [0050]FIG. 1 also shows a second circulation tube 102 and fluid pump 103
     similarly structured and mounted on the exterior of the opposite side of the
     container 101 that performs a similar fluid circulation function. This two tube
     102 circulation structure and flow pattern insures complete mixing and
     electrolysis of the saline solution to produce ROS concentrations calculated to
     be between 0.05 and 50 ppm.

     [0051]FIG. 2 is a top view of the preferred embodiment of the invention shown in
     FIG. 1.

     [0052]Although this reference has made reference to the illustrated embodiments,
     it is not intended to limit the scope of the claims. The claims themselves
     recite those features deemed essential to the invention.

     Patent applications by MARCUS G THEODORE, PC
     0.01.02.03.04.05.02001-102003-042004-082005-072006-062007-092008-062009-11

     Patent applications in class Hydrogen peroxide
     0.01.42.84.25.67.02005-012005-112006-092007-072008-072009-032009-092010-02

     Patent applications in all subclasses Hydrogen peroxide
     0.03.06.09.012.015.02005-012005-122007-032008-042008-112009-052009-112010-05

190. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:16 pm

     @WLU “Acutally, it’s less the results than what caused them. Look up the Hawthorne effect. Results are easy to get, it’s linking them to a specific intervention rather than nonspecific effects is what counts.”

     Agreed. That’s exactly WHY they commissioned testing at the Human Performance Laboratory. They can’t know why it works either, at least not enough to provide the proof for mass media attention. They did the tests to help give them some direction on where to go next with more enhanced studies. It’s just that the findings were so surprising that they decided to show us what they’ve determined so far… that the body mobilizes free fatty acids for fuel which produces less metabolic waste which might explain why athletes report less soreness. They are trying to find out the WHY’s.

     “A single drug being able to help in all those diseases is a red flag. Were these results show in objective measures (i.e. well-understood lab tests) or subjective measures (self-report or observation by company observers)? Were the anecdotes verified? Did you make an effort to find people who weren’t helped by ASEA? If 100 people use ASEA, 95 of them aren’t helped, but 5 got better simply because people often get better (at least over the short term), and ASEA gets sent five anecdotes – where do you think they come from? Do you think ASEA is honest enough to publish on their website someone saying “I tried ASEA and it didn’t do a damned thing for me”?”

     When it was under a pharmaceutical company umbrella, THEY did the tests for diseases, it was being pursued as a drug for IV therapy for cancer. They WERE pursuing FDA approval and it got to phase 2 until they ran out of money and investors. It was originally developed as a way to clean dental equipment so tests included killing staph, candida and HIV on contact within 5 minutes with 99% dilution. The next step became, can it kill HIV in blood, and then can we test it on other pathogens? Then can it kill HIV in humans in Africa, etc… It was all investigative to get to a point where they could figure out WHY it was working and what its best use might be, what the best disease to market a drug for would be, no doubt probably what disease could it best be developed to make a profit so they did diabetes testing. It was looked at as a way to clean water for livestock… it was just “testing,” years and years and millions and millions worth of TESTING to even get it to the next stage.

     “I was under the impression that ASEA was a part of the MLM industry.”
     I’m sorry, I should have said that it’s more testing than any OTHER product in the MLM industry is wiling to do on their product. Or in the toothpaste or make-up industry or nutrition industry for that matter.

     And thanks for making my point that penicillin worked 20 years before its use. It could have saved countless lives. But it wasn’t until the syphillus outbreak in WW2 that forced its use without testing which then fueled studies. It was dismissed too initially. I hope it doesn’t take an anthrax attack in the US before people embrace this technology. Surely in the technology age we can shorten the turnaround down to 5 years instead of 20?

191. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:22 pm

     Tracy, copying and pasting patents in toto is utterly meaningless.

192. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 8:28 pm

     Patent application title: Method and apparatus for producing a stabilized
     antimicrobial non-toxic electrolyzed saline solution exhibiting potential as a
     therapeutic

     Inventors: Verdis Norton Gary L. Samuelson

     This is indeed a patent application as previously mentioned. Anyone can apply for a patent. Doing so does not in any way evidence that the product or device performs as claimed.

193. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:33 pm

     1) A patent is meant to defend intellectual property, not demonstrate that something is medically effective; if you want to demonstrate that ASEA is anything but overpriced salt water, the threshold is a peer-reviewed journal article, and the ultimate hurdle is FDA approval.

     2) What does freeing fatty acids for metabolic fuel have to do with curing diseases? Is ASEA a performance enhancer, a magical cure, or both? Is there anything it can’t do?

     3) So…you’re saying Big Pharma had miracle drug that treated multiple diseases with no side effects and they didn’t pursue it? The scale I use to rate the absurdity of nonsense needs to be recalibrated.

     Are you sure it wasn’t more like “hey, this salt water doesn’t really work well because it’s just salt water” and they moved on to more profitable areas? Because a single, patentable compound that can effectively and safely treat multiple diseases is pretty much the holy grail of pharmaceutical development. Drug companies spend millions of dollars trying to repurpose neuroleptics as GI modulators, or beta blockers as anti-anxiety medication, or antidepressants as sleeping pills. I’m sure you have been told all of the things you say above, I’m sure you can provide me with a bunch of useless ASEA webpages that make these claims – I just don’t think they’re true and I don’t think you have any independent evidence. Why would Big Pharma spend millions on a product that was actually effective – then simply abandon it? You’ve got an MBA, why don’t you give me the business perspective on this?

     Surely in the technology age we can shorten the turnaround down to 5 years instead of 20?

     And every day you spend on message boards desperately trying to drum up business is one more day that wasn’t used to test this miracle you believe in. According to your own standard, you are the problem. If you really want to help people with your magic salt water – you need to research and publish. Why don’t you go do that?

194. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:38 pm

     @ everybody! Of course I know about the placebo effect! But animals don’t know about placebo. I’ve seen dogs with limps walk normally after drinking it for 3 days. I’ve seen horses with conjunctivitis in the eyes be cleared up in hours. My daughter had pink eye, one spray at night and it was gone the next day (forgot to spray the other eye though but that was easy enough to remedy). It helped my 10-year tinnitus in 3 weeks and the numbness and tingling down my arm from an 8-month old bulging disc problem at C5-C6, my years-old bacterial infection in my eyes cleared up after 3 weeks of spraying even though the warm compresses and continuous lens cleanings didn’t work. My cat’s abcess cleared up in less than 10 hours. Did my cat know about the placebo effect? Did my plant know about it, because I bought identical peace lillies and sprayed them with water and ASEA but the ASEA one thrived? Did my friend who had has a 20-year-old disabled sister tell her that her diaper rash would clear up if she sprayed it because it did clear up despite dozens of medications that didn’t work. Did my nursing home friend tell the old lady with the bed sore that ASEA THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER BY A FRIEND was going to help it even though she’d tried antibiotics for 8 months to no avail? I only know of one hospice story and it was my friend in Berea KY who was given it by a friend, she didn’t pay for it, nobody is prEying on hospice people, good Lord! Her hair grew back black at the base of her neck, she started gaining weight and she’s out of hospice care now. I’m trying to be compliant here, I’m not even telling all the REALLY compelling stories I know that have labwork to back it up! Enough to fill a room, this YOUTUBE (I know you love youtube’s!) is my friend Cindy Sawyer in Versailles KY and I don’t think it’s compliant but it’s already out there so I’ll use it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iHjsiRCn20. I know Cindy’s husband who is an international Christian artist, a documentary has been made about his work, I know her son, I’ve watched his progress. These aren’t people who are just trying to make a buck. Believe me, quite the opposite is true! We are GIVING AWAY more product than any amount of money we have made because we just can’t help it when we know how much it will help someone. There’s more to life than money, the only reason I want to make it is to give more away! And to give more ASEA away! I want to leave a legacy for my kids, they don’t care if I die rich… was I a good person and did I live my life with integrity and did I make a difference? That’s what I want to leave behind, not a big fat bank account for them. They need to find their own way and I hope they don’t chase money, it doesn’t buy happiness. Money won’t buy you a good night’s sleep. Money won’t buy you peace of mind. I have that!!!

195. # JJ Borgmanon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:39 pm

     Dear Ms. King,

     An echo, (echo, echo), of what you have cited is useless. There seems to be NO patent. Please give the seven digit patent number for the patent. A Patent Application number comprises nothing in regard to an actual patent. In other words, there is no patent.

196. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:39 pm

     @ Narad, thin ice? My mom has Alzheimer’s, and that how doctors talk to me, and you said you were a doctor so I was talking straight to you. I don’t understand your comment. I was trying to be concise.

197. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:40 pm

     @ Narad, about the patents, he asked for them.

198. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:42 pm

     You’ve got an MBA

     Although apparently not an active CPA license in Kentucky, BTW.

199. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 8:51 pm

     @ WLU “Again I go back to – would you give money to someone who promised to triple it risk-free within 30 days as long as they are paid in cash in increments of $1000 per share?”

     Who the hell talks like this? No ASEA rep I have ever met has EVER used anywhere close to language resembling that tired rhetoric. Find me one who talks like that! We’re a different breed, we’re not attracting those slime balls, they can’t make their quick buck, they might come in for a while but they leave quickly, this is a JOB like any other, they take their gold chain-wearing selves to the juice and shake companies, that’s not us. Most ASEA reps have spouses who are doctors, chemists, biologists and that’s how they’ve become successful, I’m not successful because right now we’re in education mode in the USA, it’s slow and tedious, we’re not flashing big checks and promising a Mercedes. I am investing my time right now in the hopes that we will reach the language the appeals to the common people, or we get the studies that give us the medical community backing so that we don’t have to educate, just market. Sounds like you got cornered by a bad Amway rep back in the day? Are you a doctor cuz I’ve had some bad doctor experiences but I don’t generalize that ALL DOCTORS are horrible arrogant people who don’t care and are out to take my money and put my mom on prescriptions that cause more harm than good. I’ve never gotten my money back on a prescription that didn’t work, and there have been PLENTY for her! ASEA offers a complete 30-day empty bottle money-back unconditional guarantee. Do I get money back if my mom’s doctor gives us bad advice? Or charges us for a worthless clinic visit? SHEESH I WISH!!!!!!!!!!

200. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 8:57 pm

     There’s more to life than money, the only reason I want to make it is to give more away! And to give more ASEA away!

     OMG! You’re truly a saint. You have magic water that can cure all disease and restore the elderly to youth, and you want to give away all the money you make.

201. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:01 pm

     @ JJ Borgman, are you retarded or illiterate? These are the U.S. patent numbers listed right on the bottle and in the patent document: 5,507,932 cited at [0007], and 5,674,537 cited at [013], 6,007,686 cited at [017], and 6,117,285 [019].

     These are the the other patents:
     [0005] 5334383
     [0009] 5560816
     [011] 5622848
     [015] 5731008
     [019] 6117285
     [021] 2 Japanese and 1 Mexican patent

202. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:08 pm

     @ Narad “Although apparently not an active CPA license in Kentucky, BTW.”

     WOW! I never said I was. I voluntarily surrendered my license in 2010 because I got tired of paying $200 every other year and doing the continuing education knowing that I was never going back to it. I worked for Deloitte and Touche, a “Big 6″ firm at the time, I haven’t done public accounting since 1990 and I’ve been out of the accounting profession since 1998. My CPA certificate number was 5568 and was awarded Nov. 20, 1992. I got a full scholarship to Brescia College (now called University) and graduated in THREE years with a BS in Acctg Summa Cum Laude and received “Most Outstanding Accounting Student” in 1988-1989. I was awarded my MBA from the University of Kentucky December 1990 where I graduated with a perfect 4.0. I don’t know NMR but I am certainly not incapable of learning, or a liar.

203. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:10 pm

     @WLU we don’t NEED peer-reviewed studies BECAUSE WE’RE A SUPPLEMENT NOT A DRUG! The fact that we are PURSUING THEM ANYWAY means we CAN!

204. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 9:11 pm

     Those patents are old patents and are for sterilization equipment and solutions. The solutions are not for human consumption or the treatment of human disease, nor for improving athletic performance. Are you claiming that these are ASEA’s patents?

205. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 9:13 pm

     This is fraud.

206. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:21 pm

     animals don’t know about placebo. I’ve seen dogs with limps walk normally after drinking it for 3 days.

     How do you know they wouldn’t have gotten better without the ASEA? Once I had a cut on my arm. I ate peanut butter sandwiches for a week – and my arm got better! Peanut butter sandwiches HEAL LIKE JESUS!!!!

     I’ve seen horses with conjunctivitis in the eyes be cleared up in hours. My daughter had pink eye, one spray at night and it was gone the next day (forgot to spray the other eye though but that was easy enough to remedy).

     Viral conjunctivitis disappears without treatment.

     It helped my 10-year tinnitus in 3 weeks and the numbness and tingling down my arm from an 8-month old bulging disc problem at C5-C6, my years-old bacterial infection in my eyes cleared up after 3 weeks of spraying even though the warm compresses and continuous lens cleanings didn’t work. My cat’s abcess cleared up in less than 10 hours.

     Could you imagine if you mixed it with Windex? WE COULD FINALLY TURN THIS ECONOMY AROUND!!! And, of course, give you streak-free windows!

     Again, all of your anecdotes are not more convincing when summed together, nor do we have any way of verifying that they are true.

     We are GIVING AWAY more product than any amount of money we have made because we just can’t help it when we know how much it will help someone.

     Do you know what would help even more people? Controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. Seriously, every single character you type here is a complete waste of everyone’s time, time that could be better spent testing your god damned salt water. We don’t care how many tumors it cured on your father’s sister’s pet food supplier’s plumber’s house cat’s ass. If it is as effective as you say, it will be easy for you to demonstrate this in controlled trials, and your results will be easily replicable. For that matter, you could almost certainly get the FDA to fast track it. So go, research, publish, then return effulgent and triumphant. In short order you will have a Cochrane review you can rub our faces in, then a Nobel Prize. But please, just go.

     There’s more to life than money, the only reason I want to make it is to give more away!

     Really? I make money to spend it on food, clothes, mortgage and candy. You should incorporate as a charitable foundation, you’ll get some sweet tax deductions for giving away your salt water.

     did I live my life with integrity and did I make a difference?

     If you think you’ve lived your life with integrity, we have different definitions of the word.

     That’s what I want to leave behind, not a big fat bank account for them.

     Again, you have an MBA? Are you sure? Does it stand for something different than what I’m expecting, because I’m pretty sure ASEA is made by a company, that pretty much just exists to have a fat bank account – and is using a MLM plan to achieve it.

     Money won’t buy you a good night’s sleep. Money won’t buy you peace of mind. I have that!!!

     Correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the quality of your sleep is completely unrelated to the efficacy of your product. I’m not interested in your personal happiness – I’m interested in whether there is anything to back up your claims beyond “the internet”. Anyone can say anything on the internet, and it doesn’t make it true. For instance – you are a rooster. Carefully examine your extremities and oral cavity – I’m sure you will note the distinct lack of feathers and a beak.

     Who the hell talks like this?

     When people don’t understand a topic, analogies are used to try to help. I’m trying to show you what skepticism should look like by bringing it closer to an area where you (supposedly) have enough knowledge to understand why I am reluctant to take you at your word. It’s apparently not working.

     they can’t make their quick buckblahblahblahgold chain-wearing selvesblahblahblahI’m not successfulblahblahblahflashing big checks and promising a Mercedesblahblahblahthe common people

     None of which is proof that ASEA is effective. Peer reviewed studies are however, particularly if replicated by an independent lab.

     so that we don’t have to educate, just market. Sounds like you got cornered by a bad Amway rep back in the day?

     Yeah, wrong on both counts. You research first, then you sell. That’s the ethical way to do it. I’ve never encountered an Amway rep in person, I just dislike MLM’s penchant for forcing their sales people to shoulder all the risk.

     Are you a doctor cuz I’ve had some bad doctor experiences but I don’t generalize that ALL DOCTORS are horrible arrogant people who don’t care and are out to take my money and put my mom on prescriptions that cause more harm than good.

     I’m not a doctor, I’ve just an ounce of common sense. You should advocate for a national health care service by the way, publicly-funded insurance is awesome and it might mean you aren’t treating cancer with salt water.

207. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:23 pm

     @WLU CAN YOU READ? ASEA is not is saying it cures diseases! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT! FIND ME SOME CORPORATE LITERATURE THAT SAYS THAT! We have a compliance dept that monitors this closely and educates associates on how to speak plainly without having to speak about disease! We don’t have to go there, WE DON’T HAVE TO SAY IT!

     If you understand that:
     1) IF YOUR CELLS ARE HEALTHY THEN YOU’RE HEALTHY
     2) ALL DISEASE CAN BE LINKED TO DAMAGED CELLS
     3) ALL HEALTH AND WELLNESS BEGINS WITH HEALTHY CELLS…
     … then why in the world do we have to do specific tests on isolated diseases IF WE ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM? The fact that we are proving our product out through athletic testing, antioxidant efficiency testing, absorption testing, metabolite testing, and who knows what other testing they is currently underway… shows that we are respecting academia but we can STILL BE CREDIBLE without having to make disease claims! New research is showing that it’s not about antioxidants, it’s about ACTIVATING the antioxidants and antioxidants are only activated in the presence of REDOX SIGNALING MOLECULES. This has only recently come to light. It’s no wonder you all are skeptical, I GET IT, I GET IT, I TOTALLY GET IT! But just because we don’t have peer-reviewed studies on a disease process doesn’t mean PEOPLE AREN’T GETTING RESULTS! And just because people are getting results doesn’t mean THAT IT IS ALL ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLACEBO OR ALL PEOPLE ARE LYING! What kind of logic is this?! Reasonable people reveal yourself!

208. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:24 pm

     Does this mean ANYTHING to ANYONE? I doubt it but wanted to show it anyway. It will make sense to you later. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9350680.htm

209. # JJ Borgmanon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:26 pm

     Dear Ms. King,

     We don’t know each other well enough to use terms of endearment such as ” retarded”. So you may KMA in that regard. Apparently the use of proper manners has eroded in Kentucky in your generation. I’m sure your daddy would slap your mouth.

     Just the same, I don’t have a bottle from which to take patent numbers. I only referred to your link to a “patent” claim which does not bear out. It is Not a patent. It is a patent application. Please try to focus.

210. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:32 pm

     @ WLU “So…you’re saying Big Pharma had miracle drug that treated multiple diseases with no side effects and they didn’t pursue it? The scale I use to rate the absurdity of nonsense needs to be recalibrated.”

     No they DID pursue it! The company commissioned a movie called “The Genesis” to document and confirm this claim. You can watch it at http://www.asea.net. They got offers from 3 pharmaceutical companies, Barre Pharmaceuticals is the only named one. J&J has been rumored to be the other one. But they would have required that all machines, copyrights, patents be handed over. Verdis was in his 70′s, HE would have had to turn over HIS machine and not have access, and people he PERSONALLY KNEW who were having life-changing results on the product would have had to STOP IMMEDIATELY. And it wasn’t clear what the pharmaceutical company would DO with it IF they bought it, it could conceivably not be available to the public for years, or at an exhorbitant price, or only for one disease indication, or that it would be shelved, especially if it competed with a therapy or drug that made more money for the pharmaceutical company than an alternative cure. After all, diseases like diabetes create a cash flow of pharmaceuticals, if you CURE something, then where’s the profit margin on that? Blah blah blah, conspiracy, but still conceivably true nonetheless.

211. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:36 pm

     WOW! I never said I was.

     Yes, you did:

     TracyKing on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:57 am

     I want to be right, I want to help people, I have good ethics. But I’m a CPA with an MBA….

     I understand that one may not wish to keep up one’s licensure, but then the thing to say is “I used to be a CPA” or “I’m a CPA (inactive),” as opposed to “I’m a CPA.” I was once a notary public, but I don’t run around trying to invoke this in the present tense.

212. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:40 pm

     we don’t NEED peer-reviewed studies BECAUSE WE’RE A SUPPLEMENT NOT A DRUG! The fact that we are PURSUING THEM ANYWAY means we CAN!

     Marketing a product as a supplement rather than a drug is a tactic used by many companies to avoid having to do the kind of rigorous studies to make actual medical claims. You appear to be bragging about this when you should be ashamed of it. The only reason you can make such ridiculous claims is because of the DSHEA (which should be repealed).

     CAN YOU READ? ASEA is not is saying it cures diseases! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT! FIND ME SOME CORPORATE LITERATURE THAT SAYS THAT! We have a compliance dept that monitors this closely and educates associates on how to speak plainly without having to speak about disease! We don’t have to go there, WE DON’T HAVE TO SAY IT!

     This is another tactic used by supplement manufacturers – the company scrupulously avoids making claims of efficacy. Instead, the dupes selling their products make the claims for them. Again, the dupe shoulders the risk, the company makes the profit. I bet your compliance department is very, very careful to avoid saying anything that could get it prosecuted – mostly because it can’t back up its claims with real evidence. This is not a point of pride – its more evidence of how unethical the business and your company is. For FSM sake, Cherios can say it lowers cholesterol because there’s proof for one of its ingredients. Your company can’t even meet the same threshold of proof as a cereal box. Be proud.

     1) IF YOUR CELLS ARE HEALTHY THEN YOU’RE HEALTHY
     2) ALL DISEASE CAN BE LINKED TO DAMAGED CELLS
     3) ALL HEALTH AND WELLNESS BEGINS WITH HEALTHY CELLS…
     … then why in the world do we have to do specific tests on isolated diseases IF WE ARE NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM?

     You have been carefully groomed by your company to avoid making these claims because if you do, you can get sued and you can get them sued. Again, this is not because you don’t need to prove your claim, this is essentially corporate malfeasance just this side of what is legal. The reason people don’t jump from test tubes to treatments is because the body is incredibly complicated, your cute little syllogism rests on the truth of your premises – which unfortunately use the word “healthy”. Obviously you are not aware that there is no universally accepted definition of “healthy” in the medical literature; it is meaningless. Another reason you are no doubt encouraged to use it.

     who knows what other testing they is currently underway… shows that we are respecting academia but we can STILL BE CREDIBLE without having to make disease claims!

     Nope, it means you are putting on a good show for the product you are selling without enough evidence to concretely say it does something clinically meaningful.

     New research is showing that it’s not about antioxidants, it’s about ACTIVATING the antioxidants and antioxidants are only activated in the presence of REDOX SIGNALING MOLECULES.

     Hm…obviously I missed the post where you linked to the peer-reviewed study that demonstrated ASEA has in vivo effects on redox signalling. Or perhaps you are still a rooster?

     I GET IT, I GET IT, I TOTALLY GET IT! But just because we don’t have peer-reviewed studies on a disease process doesn’t mean PEOPLE AREN’T GETTING RESULTS! And just because people are getting results doesn’t mean THAT IT IS ALL ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLACEBO OR ALL PEOPLE ARE LYING! What kind of logic is this?! Reasonable people reveal yourself!

     Clearly you don’t get it, because you’re still trying to substitute anecdote for data.

     Does this mean ANYTHING to ANYONE?

     It means you’re trying to substitute a press release for actual evidence (again).

     No they DID pursue it! The company commissioned a movie called “The Genesis” to document and confirm this claim.

     My GOD why didn’t YOU SAY SO!! THEY DON’T LET JUST ANYONE MAKE A MOVIE AND PUT IT ON THE INTERNET!!!! Incidentally, there’s an entire category of movie reviews you might want to check out. It might make you a little less trusting of stuff you find on YouTube and in press releases.

     After all, diseases like diabetes create a cash flow of pharmaceuticals, if you CURE something, then where’s the profit margin on that? Blah blah blah, conspiracy, but still conceivably true nonetheless.

     You should check your dictionary; conceivable isn’t the same thing as “actually happened”.

     And you seriously think that if Big Pharma had a cure for cancer, they couldn’t make money off of it? Are you sure you have an MBA? You can’t think of any situation in which Big Pharma could make money off of a cure for cancer (hint – they could sell it to people with cancer).

213. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:41 pm

     @ Sialis “Those patents are old patents and are for sterilization equipment and solutions. The solutions are not for human consumption or the treatment of human disease, nor for improving athletic performance. Are you claiming that these are ASEA’s patents?”

     No the patents listed on the bottle and in the patent application were created to protect the PROCESS by which ASEA is made. The ingredients are unpatentable. Let’s say I’m right and we have created balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the same molecular formation as your body makes them and they can be utilized by your body’s cells to bring them in balance so that unbalanced free-floating free radicals are neutralized, there is increased capacity for signaling to be received and transmitted with greater clarity to the immune system… we do ALL the research, testing, marketing… and then people can just learn how to make it themselves, undercut our price, skirt around the individual marketer, make it in China and sell it at Wal-Mart for cheap! Since they have no sunk costs to recoup — somebody else did all the work for them — they just get to come in and scoop it all up! Thankfully, there’s a 3-day patented PROCESS using sudden temperature changes and electric currents to vibrate the molecules apart and put them back together in a different molecular formation that is stable (because it’s enveloped in salt water molecules) and non-reactive (until it comes in contact with organic matter). The PROCESS is what’s patentable, no we don’t have a patent on a cure for diseases or for athletic performance.

214. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:41 pm

     Does this mean ANYTHING to ANYONE?

     Yes, that you think advertising material is some sort of insurmountable force in the battle against evidence.

215. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 9:45 pm

     They got offers from 3 pharmaceutical companies, Barre Pharmaceuticals is the only named one.

     Where is this “Barre Pharmaceuticals” located and who is the CEO?

216. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:45 pm

     @ Narad, “I understand that one may not wish to keep up one’s licensure, but then the thing to say is “I used to be a CPA” or “I’m a CPA (inactive),” as opposed to “I’m a CPA.” I was once a notary public, but I don’t run around trying to invoke this in the present tense.”

     Ok fine, sorry, I was proud that I had obtained it, I passed 3 parts on the first try and then picked up law the 2nd time. You’re so right, I should have said “I’m a CPA (inactive)” but my POINT in bringing it up was that I did NOT pretend to have knowledge of chemistry or medicine. I wasn’t trying to solicit your business to do your taxes.

217. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:47 pm

     @ Sialis, sorry I misspelled it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barr_Pharmaceuticals

218. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 9:51 pm

     Tracy, Give me the name of the person at Barr.

219. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:53 pm

     As HUGELY entertaining as this is, there’s only so much repetition even I can take. I’m going to bed, and I eagerly await the arrival of new anecdotes, special pleading, unverifiable information, press releases and youtube videos that will greet me with the new day.

     Here I am now, entertain me!

220. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 9:54 pm

     Did my cat know about the placebo effect? Did my plant know about it, because I bought identical peace lillies and sprayed them with water and ASEA but the ASEA one thrived?

     It’s not every day that one sees the Benneth homeopathy defense repurposed, but I suppose some inferences may usefully follow.

221. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 9:58 pm

     Interesting that someone has created a Facebook page for “Barre Pharmaceuticals” with only one Friend and not other entries. It does not seem that such a company is in business, or if it is it’s certainly not a major pharmaceutical company. On the other hand, if Tracy did indeed mean Barr Pharmaceuticals, she should be able to provide detailed information as to who from Barr was involved in this big pow wow. I’d like the names and date of the meeting, Tracy.

222. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:02 pm

     @ WLU “Marketing a product as a supplement rather than a drug is a tactic used by many companies to avoid having to do the kind of rigorous studies to make actual medical claims. You appear to be bragging about this when you should be ashamed of it. The only reason you can make such ridiculous claims is because of the DSHEA (which should be repealed).”

     The fact that it takes $100m and 12+ years to get a technology to market is what you should be ashamed of. There are plenty of technologies that WORK but that aren’t pursuable because of investment required. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxArVCsKho

     “This is another tactic used by supplement manufacturers – the company scrupulously avoids making claims of efficacy. Instead, the dupes selling their products make the claims for them. Again, the dupe shoulders the risk, the company makes the profit. I bet your compliance department is very, very careful to avoid saying anything that could get it prosecuted – mostly because it can’t back up its claims with real evidence. This is not a point of pride – its more evidence of how unethical the business and your company is. For FSM sake, Cherios can say it lowers cholesterol because there’s proof for one of its ingredients. Your company can’t even meet the same threshold of proof as a cereal box. Be proud.”

     OR… we’re trying to create a paradigm shift whereby people quit thinking diseases are “curable” but rather understand that 80% of diseases are “preventable.” Doesn’t that send a better message? A more TRUE message? One that lets us AVOID a Dateline exclusive of an ASEA meeting where people are getting up on stage and saying their cancer was cured only to be caught on hidden camera… and fined and dismantled… who do you think might have initated that hidden camera excusive? A pharmaceutical company that is making a trillion off chemo/radiation? I think it’s a smart route myself.

     “Nope, it means you are putting on a good show for the product you are selling without enough evidence to concretely say it does something clinically meaningful.”
     Only time will tell. Keep watching.

     “Hm…obviously I missed the post where you linked to the peer-reviewed study that demonstrated ASEA has in vivo effects on redox signalling. Or perhaps you are still a rooster?”

     You can look that up, I’m not going to do your work FOR you, it will mean more to you if you find it. It’s out there. It’s published material on redox signaling. Hint: start with the research links enumerated here: http://www.asea.net/usa/science/redox-signaling-research

     “And you seriously think that if Big Pharma had a cure for cancer, they couldn’t make money off of it? Are you sure you have an MBA? You can’t think of any situation in which Big Pharma could make money off of a cure for cancer (hint – they could sell it to people with cancer).”

     Oh they COULD make money off it, but why would they introduce it if they’re ALREADY making more money than they could if they came out with their cure? Is that so hard to believe my dear Watson? If so, that’s naive. It’s about the money for them, make no mistake.

223. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:02 pm

     Let’s say I’m right and we have created balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the same molecular formation as your body makes them and they can be utilized by your body’s cells to bring them in balance so that unbalanced free-floating free radicals are neutralized, there is increased capacity for signaling to be received and transmitted with greater clarity to the immune system… we do ALL the research, testing, marketing… and then people can just learn how to make it themselves, undercut our price, skirt around the individual marketer, make it in China and sell it at Wal-Mart for cheap!

     “We”?

     TracyKing on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:06 am

     I don’t work for corporate

224. # Sialison 20 Dec 2012 at 10:08 pm

     I want names and dates, Tracy. Good night.

225. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:21 pm

     @ Sialis, I wish I could provide it, it’s not like I was there. I’m just a lowly associate, I’m not privy to such information. I shouldn’t have said the name of the company, it has not been named in company documents to my knowledge. The fact that they made a movie to support that a solid offer by a pharmaceutical company WAS MADE puts them in the hot seat if it’s not true. Personally I think it’s unlikely they would just make it up out of thin air but then again I’m a skeptic not a cynic, I’m sure you need the proof. For what it’s worth, here’s the 1-minute video showing that they are unequivocably professing to have had an offer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgbnwcdlvc. But play along for a minute… let’s say it IS true that they got an offer — do you think a pharmaceutical company would make an offer if there wasn’t some validation? Remember they are getting to look at the vaulted research we aren’t privy to since it’s a supplement now.

     Here’s another juicy tidbit: consider that it took two years between ASEA purchasing MDI-P and consulting with Dr. Samuelson to devise the discovery that was even bigger than how to make it (how to STABILIZE it). The scientist team DID finally figure out how to keep it shelf stable (prior to that time, it was only stable for about 30 minutes before becoming inactive), yay! But that also meant that ALL those preliminary safety, toxicity, efficacy studies would need to be REPEATED — and would cost MILLIONS of dollars — because it wasn’t the same solution anymore, it was a new solution. Sounds like a crossroads doesn’t it? And consider how hard it is to find investors who are willing to belly up $100m for a product to go up against big pharma, or be consumed by them or not be marketable because somebody beats you to it or comes up with something better… drug mining is risky. What decision would YOU have made? Sounds like a good movie doesn’t it? Let me know if you want it, I’ll mail you the DVD.

226. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:24 pm

     OR… we’re trying to create a paradigm shift whereby people quit thinking diseases are “curable” but rather understand that 80% of diseases are “preventable.” Doesn’t that send a better message? A more TRUE message?

     You seem to have left out the part where one reads Kuhn before invoking him.

227. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:30 pm

     @ Narad… “We? I don’t work for corporate”

     I like to think I’m part of the company as their representative. But no I’m not on any corporate payroll. When I worked for an employer, I ALWAYS said “we,” don’t you? Even when I worked for Wal-Mart as a teenager, I said “How can WE serve you?” I was a consultant with Pampered Chef and I said “OUR products…” I was their representative and I was treated like family. I worked for Kentucky Utilities and “WE” had a softball team. Seriously though, THAT’S where we’re going with this now? Are you all used to talking to trolls who disguise themselves as non-corporate so that’s why you all use this kind of abrasive condescending language on here? I’m sorry, I’m sure that’s frustrating.

228. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 10:49 pm

     @Sialis. “Interesting that someone has created a Facebook page for “Barre Pharmaceuticals” with only one Friend and not other entries. It does not seem that such a company is in business, or if it is it’s certainly not a major pharmaceutical company.”

     There’s a facebook page called Sialis with 1 like, does that mean YOU’RE not real?!

229. # TracyKingon 20 Dec 2012 at 11:02 pm

     @ Narad, “Speaking as someone with substantial experience in journals publishing, I am confident in informing you that this statement in and of itself badly undercuts your credibility. If this were a paper submitted to a journal, the publication date would not yet exist. If it had been submitted and accepted, you could (1) identify it and (2) explain a four-month lead time from acceptance, which, given that high impact factors and hence clogged pipelines are right out, implies a seriously backwater operation, a commissioned special issue, or both.”

     Yes of course you are right, I concur completely. They EXPECT that it will be published in the spring so I’m just saying April to be safe, I’m sure with Murphy’s Law that it will be even later, I hope not. But regardless, the process is underway. If it takes until NEXT April, then that’s how long it takes, but be forewarned, we WILL have published peer-reviewed data eventually. AND NOT ON A DISEASE PROCESS! I just HAD to throw that in one last time for the benefit of people who keep repeating the same misinformed arguments, obviously without reading any previous comments (cough… WLU).

230. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 11:05 pm

     When I worked for an employer, I ALWAYS said “we,” don’t you?

     Absolutely not. I’ve had to explain fairly rigid policies and negotiate mutually acceptable paths around them, but this is different from the MLM marketing model, which apparently involves some sort of now-I’m-in-now-I’m-out-SMILE! shtick.

231. # Naradon 20 Dec 2012 at 11:09 pm

     But regardless, the process is underway.

     If you cannot identify the journal (and note that your construction of this scenario requires a single journal), you’re plainly full of beans.

232. # Sarah from Germanyon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:30 am

     Greetings again,

     As mentioned before, the first company that discovered this technology, Medical Discoveries Inc. decided to seek FDA approval for 2 indications – cystic fibrosis and an adjunct to HIV. Here is an article they released about their initial findings.

     http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-discoveries-inc-announces-receipt-of-cystic-fibrosis-pre-clinical-report-on-mdi-p-74148372.html

     Here is another document released to verify the ROS and RS in Asea. http://asea.myvoffice.com/pdf/en/ASEA_Component_Verification_Document.pdf

     Asea is not at liberty to publish all the findings and research that Medical Discoveries Inc. (MDI) completed because MDI was working through the FDA in the pharmaceutical realm. When Asea decided not to sell the intellectual property, they decided to pursue approval through the FTC in the nutriceutical realm. I am sure you all realize, that in this realm, they can not make any claims to cure, treat or prevent any diseases just to boost immune function in the body. There are many MD’s and PhD’s accepting this technology every day. There is truth behind this product, you just need to know where to look to find proper, credible evidence. I encourage you all to do your own research and due diligence. Contact Dr.Samuelson, he is the mastermind behind it all. Imagine that everything I have told you is true, how could this product really impact the quality of life for so, so many people? Realize that my time is very valuable and that I only come here to share what I know because I have such a deep conviction in this product. Sick people deserve to know that Asea exists and that there is hope that they may get well again. I will continue to post credible information as I find it.

     Cheers,
     Sarah

233. # carassiuson 21 Dec 2012 at 5:58 am

     @ Sarah:

     How could it possibly be wrong when it feels so right?

     Seriously though, I’ve tried to read through all the comments here and i haven’t seen anyone who supports this product(s) offer a good explanation as to why some simple, independent research cannot be performed. About 20 or 50 comments ago a very simple experiment was suggested which seems to be a great start in offering legitimacy to this product. (I’m trying to be diplomatic in my language).

     I have a goalpost in mind and it does not necessarily include FDA approval. It starts with independent, high quality, double blinded experimentation to support any claims made. Once that is done, it should be repeated 100 more times (approximately), preferably with a different independent group (how about an academic institution or two). If this goalpost is met and reveals consistent results I may start to believe you and think about buying this product for my family and random feral kittens that I meet. I would venture to guess that several of the most cautious and skeptical among this group may also be swayed, but I don’t claim to speak for them.

     If Dr. Samuelson, and/or his or her followers believe in this product so much, why don’t they do this? The initial costs might be a fraction of whatever you guys spend now generating this, in the few links I followed, crap offered in support of asea.

234. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:42 am

     The fact that it takes $100m and 12+ years to get a technology to market is what you should be ashamed of. There are plenty of technologies that WORK but that aren’t pursuable because of investment required.

     1) Youtube is not a reliable source
     2) You’re claiming a different unproven drug is justification for allowing the sale of your unproven drug?
     3) You should read this

     OR… we’re trying to create a paradigm shift whereby people quit thinking diseases are “curable” but rather understand that 80% of diseases are “preventable.”…I think it’s a smart route myself.

     Using the word “paradigm shift” doesn’t mean ASEA works. You’re not sending a “better” message, you’re “making unproven claims”. It’s not a “smart” route, but it’s definitely a profitable one. Let’s see if I understand your reasoning. Big Pharma invests hundreds of millions of dollars into proving their products work – and this is bad. ASEA invests…nothing in proving their products work – and this is laudable?

     I’m not going to do your work FOR you…It’s published material on redox signaling. Hint: start with the research links enumerated here

     In which case you’re working for the right company, since they are apparently uninterested in doing any work at all (beyond marketing). Again, redox signaling exists. There’s no proof that ASEA influences it. Surely you can provide me one link to a pubmed-indexed article that explicitly links ASEA to redox signaling via experimental testing? Otherwise this is yet more irrelevant links.

     Oh they COULD make money off it, but why would they introduce it if they’re ALREADY making more money than they could if they came out with their cure? Is that so hard to believe my dear Watson? If so, that’s naive. It’s about the money for them, make no mistake.

     I’m back to having trouble not using the word “idiot”. Are you sure you have an MBA?

     The fact that they made a movie to support that a solid offer by a pharmaceutical company WAS MADE puts them in the hot seat if it’s not true. Personally I think it’s unlikely they would just make it up out of thin air but then again I’m a skeptic not a cynic, I’m sure you need the proof. For what it’s worth, here’s the 1-minute video showing that they are unequivocably professing to have had an offer. . But play along for a minute… let’s say it IS true that they got an offer — do you think a pharmaceutical company would make an offer if there wasn’t some validation? Remember they are getting to look at the vaulted research we aren’t privy to since it’s a supplement now.

     1) You’re not a skeptic at all, but you are enabling them to make a lot of money. I’m sure they appereciate it.
     2) The only companies found in that video are ASEA, Toshiba and Mac. That video makes no actual claims that can be verified.
     3) Do you upload to a different Youtube than I do? Because the youtube videos I upload don’t get fact checked. It’s almost as if they let anybody put anything up on the internet.
     4) You need a better dictionary, because your definition of “proof” is about as bad as your definition of “skeptic”.
     5) Your chain of reasoning misses a critical step, the part that says “I wonder if there was any company or if they’re blowing smoke up our asses in an effort to undercut the skeptical reasoning of our MLM suppliers, who pay us for the privilege of selling our products”.
     6) Real science isn’t “vaulted”, it’s public. Patents are used to protect intellectual property so a company can publish evidence in a scientific venue without losing their claim.

     Sounds like a crossroads doesn’t it? And consider how hard it is to find investors who are willing to belly up $100m for a product to go up against big pharma, or be consumed by them or not be marketable because somebody beats you to it or comes up with something better… drug mining is risky. What decision would YOU have made? Sounds like a good movie doesn’t it?

     Sounds like corporate handwaving to excuse the fact that they don’t have any efficacy studies. If you request proof for claims and keep getting glib answers in response – you’re not working for a company, you’re getting scammed.

     But no I’m not on any corporate payroll.

     No, you’re part of a MLM scheme, where you pay the company for the privilege of bearing all the risk. To justify your illogical decision, you have to engage in intellectual contortions, and invest massive amounts of time into defending your choice. Again, read Mistakes were were made (but not by me).

     There’s a facebook page called Sialis with 1 like, does that mean YOU’RE not real?!

     Sialis isn’t claiming to be a successful pharmaceutical company.

     They EXPECT that it will be published in the spring so I’m just saying April to be safe…we WILL have published peer-reviewed data eventually. AND NOT ON A DISEASE PROCESS! I just HAD to throw that in one last time for the benefit of people who keep repeating the same misinformed arguments, obviously without reading any previous comments (cough… WLU).

     Why don’t you leave until then? And why don’t you stop selling ASEA until you have it? Oh, that’s right, because that would interfere with making a profit. And let me see the reasoning here. You sell ASEA to enhance performance and claim it treats disease (but never explicitly, always with plausible deniability, like you were trained by Corporate), you’re supposedly publishing something that shows it work, but not on a disease process – admitting you don’t have any proof for a disease process – yet you still use it to treat disease? But I’m the misinformed one.

     Maybe you should gargle with some salt water to help you with that cough.

235. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:45 am

     Hi Sarah, as I told Tracy, links to the company’s website isn’t proof, it’s marketing.

     Asea is not at liberty to publish all the findings and research that Medical Discoveries Inc. (MDI) completed because MDI was working through the FDA in the pharmaceutical realm. When Asea decided not to sell the intellectual property, they decided to pursue approval through the FTC in the nutriceutical realm. I am sure you all realize, that in this realm, they can not make any claims to cure, treat or prevent any diseases just to boost immune function in the body.

     Oh, look – more handwaving to excuse the lack of reliable proof and information! Still not an adequate substitute. I’ve highlighted the important part, that lets companies sell products without making any specific claims that would get them sued. Looks like you attended the same training seminar as Tracy. I’m sure they were very scrupulous about ensuring you never said anything specific.

236. # Sarah from Germanyon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:17 am

     Here is another publication from Medical Discoveries Inc. about their MDI-P formulation from 2000 from the Am J Infect Control. They gained them more than 20 patents from their studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10840346

     Like I said before William, there is credible, 3rd party research publications coming. I also know that some info from the previous company is being reviewed by Asea’s lawyers for release to the public. I am quite confident that Asea will get sued a some point – they are already affecting quite some revenue streams in the pharma industry. Many people who have had their personal experiences with the product are free to name what conditions they were healed from but that does not give any other person the right to make any sorts of claims about Asea healing that condition. People have their experiences and are excited to share with others. I know from the skeptic, scientific perspective this just looks like bullshit, miraculous crap – “magic water” if you will. I know what you are looking for – and as I said earlier, I will keep providing any publications and evidence as I have it. And just for your info – I don’t know who Tracy is and I have never gone to any sort of Asea training. All I know about this company is from me doing my own personal research. You should check out Jim Humble and MMR – this was the starting point for me. I completely understand why the FDA is having a shitfit about him.

237. # Sarah from Germanyon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:28 am

     Here is a one of the many patents:

     http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5334383.PN.&OS=PN/5334383&RS=PN/5334383

     Let me know I can post more if you like.

238. # Sarah from Germanyon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:49 am

     http://www.datamonitor.com/store/News/medical_discoveries_files_patent_application_for_asthma_drug?productid=900CC5A3-D1AA-498D-A304-070AF786F4E6

239. # Sarah from Germanyon 21 Dec 2012 at 9:02 am

     http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=15491120

     Medical Discoveries Inc. clearly discovered this break-through that was very promising. They didn’t know what they had. They also clearly had some problems managing themselves, hence going bankrupt. Dr. Gary Samuelson is the one who stabilized this solution and also realized what it really is – redox signaling molecules.

240. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 10:19 am

     This is just downright comical.

     I do believe this is the first time a bunch of outright schysters has attempted to market snake oil to a (figurative) room full of highly educated skeptics (at least in the 3 years I’ve been around here). It’s like the spy movies where they are trying to pull a scam on the bad guys and realize the bad guys brought a nuclear physicist with them to verify the information and they have to scramble. Only here, they aren’t scrambling; they are just putting their heads down and trying to plow right through us as if maybe, just maybe, the 50th time they say the same discredited marketing statements free from any reasonable evidence we’ll finally just click over in our heads and say “Hey!! Maybe there is something to this ASEA thing! How do I jump on that bandwagon?”

     LOL.

     Do you really think spamming us with useless information will actually further your cause? I feel like when my 8 year old nephew sprays me with silly string thinking it will actually incapacitate me if he just sprays enough of it.

     Let’s say I’m right and we have created balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the same molecular formation as your body makes them and they can be utilized by your body’s cells to bring them in balance so that unbalanced free-floating free radicals are neutralized, there is increased capacity for signaling to be received and transmitted with greater clarity to the immune system

     So wait. Let me get this straight. You are proposing that by introducing “balanced” redox signaling molecules into an unbalanced system that will somehow balance the system?

     Do you realize the fundamental error in just thinking that way? Let’s assume, for the moment, that “balanced” redox signaling molecules (whatever the heck that means) actually exist. Let’s further assume that the cell’s redox signaling is out of balance. And lets assume “balancing” the system even makes sense (see how many assumptions we need already??)

     How does a balanced system balance an unbalanced system without then itself becoming unbalanced??

     I mean think about it. In terms my silly string captor would understand.

     You’ve got a cell that normally needs 10 oranges and 10 apples to be perfectly “balanced.” It currently has 6 oranges and 7 apples. You now introduce a perfectly balanced ASEA dose, which has 10 oranges and 10 apples since it is “balanced.” Now, the cell says “Thank you!” and takes 4 oranges and 3 apples. It is now balanced! Yay! But all of a sudden we have just traded places! Our “balanced” ASEA is now unbalanced! What happens to the rest of the ASEA?

     Now before you go saying other cells take it up, just scale the whole thing and the math works exactly the same. So it seems to me this is either a lot of BS or ASEA has to be dosed extremely carefully with a very narrow therapeutic margin.

     Oh! And we haven’t even gotten to the other scenario. What if the cell is out of balance because it has 13 oranges and 14 apples? What is bringing in more apples and oranges supposed to do to balance them?

     OK… what other internal inconsistencies can we find? I know!

     The scientist team DID finally figure out how to keep it shelf stable (prior to that time, it was only stable for about 30 minutes before becoming inactive), yay! But that also meant that ALL those preliminary safety, toxicity, efficacy studies would need to be REPEATED — and would cost MILLIONS of dollars — because it wasn’t the same solution anymore

     So he discovered how to stabilize something, but that something is now no longer the same thing just stable? It is a completely different solution? You just spent all this time telling us how the process to generate it leads to stability and that is what is unique, but now all of a sudden the process and the solution are different?

     Yes of course you are right, I concur completely. They EXPECT that it will be published in the spring so I’m just saying April to be safe, I’m sure with Murphy’s Law that it will be even later, I hope not. But regardless, the process is underway. If it takes until NEXT April, then that’s how long it takes, but be forewarned, we WILL have published peer-reviewed data eventuall

     As Narad has been pointing out, if the article is in review you should be able to say what journal. Not only should you be able you should be happy to! Which journal is it?

     I’m in review at Clinical Pathways and will be submitting to The Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine by the end of January. See how easy that was? Can you imagine I go on interviews and just say “I’m going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal as some point.” “Which one?” “A medical one! Peer reviewed!” LOL

     Medical Discoveries Inc. clearly discovered this break-through that was very promising. They didn’t know what they had.

     Neither did anyone else. From the website you linked:

     Information in this press release relating to the potential of MDI constitutes forward-looking statements. Actual results in future periods may differ materially from the forward-looking statements because of a number of risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: MDI’s lack of significant operating revenue to date; MDI’s need for substantial and immediate additional capital; the fact that MDI may dilute existing shareholders through additional stock issuances; the extensive governmental regulation to which MDI is subject; the fact that MDI’s technologies remain unproven; the intense competition MDI faces from other companies and other products; and MDI’s reliance upon patents and other intellectual property that may not provide meaningful protection against competitors.

     Boy, sure sounds like a scam to me!

     Thanks for the morning’s entertainment ladies. WLU is handling it all quite well and with more patience and detail than I could muster. I just couldn’t resist those few simple points.

241. # Scotton 21 Dec 2012 at 10:21 am

     Let’s also keep in mind that the studies the FDA requires for approval as a drug are the very same studies that are required for the producers/sellers/users to actually determine whether or not it is safe and effective. It’s not like the FDA requirements are just window dressing to make things expensive – they’re the necessary science to protect consumers from ineffective and/or dangerous drugs.

     And make no mistake, if ASEA does a billionth of the things that are claimed for it, it is a drug. Which would have EXACTLY the same potential risks as anything Merck makes. The supposed “supplement” distinction has no grounding in reality. It simply represents the success of Big Supplement in buying enough legislators to purchase favorable regulation that completely fails to protect the interests of consumers.

     If you can’t get it approved as a drug, then you don’t know whether the claims being made for it are true.

242. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:37 am

     @carassius Thanks for the response, I do believe you’re the first reasonable person I’ve met on here (besides Sarah of course, Hi Sarah, love our hearts for TRYING huh?). I’ve already referenced the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY, see these two links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Uignb91Rw, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g. They are YouTube videos (EGAD!) that ASEA produced TO EXPLAIN THE FINDINGS. The speakers on the video are the INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS who performed the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY.

     HAD THE RESEARCH COME BACK WITH NEGATIVE RESULTS OR NO RESULTS AT ALL, then the company would NOT have made a video about it, they would not have even told anyone about the results of the study, they would not have told anyone they were even DOING any kind of studies, they would have gone back to the drawing board to find out “well that wasn’t it, let’s figure out what is happening in the body so we can explain all these results people are having.” And they would have tested other parameters.

     Apparently the people on this website ARE NOT ENTREPRENEURS, this much is clear — the ONLY way to have a credible product FOR THEM is to have a PubMed research article linking it to 100′s of studies that prove it works for a disease. Ok then, we’re done here because that’s not the route we’re taking. And ALL MLM’s are schemes? Do your homework, they are owned by the most successful business men in America including Warren Buffet, and it’s how much of the world OUTSIDE OF THE US operates. Read this FORBES MAGAZINE article that says “not only are MLM’s interesting, they are successful.”

     Here is the research summary papers explaining who did the research:
     A. This research took place at the North Carolina Research
     Institute, a collaborative entity involving seven
     universities (Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, NC State, UNC
     Charlotte, NC Central, NC A&T State, UNC Greensboro,
     Appalachian State). The research was led by the Appalachian
     State University’s Human Performance Laboratory
     under the direction of Dr. David Nieman. Dr. Nieman
     and his team of Ph.Ds. are renowned for their rigorous
     research into the effects of supplementation on exercise
     and exertion.

     And how the research was conducted:
     A. The research team selected 20 highly fit cyclists, then
     randomized them into two groups of 10. Using doubleblinded
     techniques in which neither the athletes nor
     the researchers knew which group received ASEA and
     which received a placebo, one group drank four ounces
     of ASEA each day for seven days, while the other drank
     equal amounts of placebo. At the end of seven days,
     both groups undertook a 75-km cycling trial. Blood was
     drawn immediately before the trial, immediately after,
     and one hour after.
     After a washout period in which the athletes drank
     neither ASEA nor placebo, the crossover portion of the
     research took place. Again double-blinded, the original
     ASEA group now drank the placebo for seven days, and
     the original placebo group drank ASEA. At the end of the
     seven days, both groups did the same 75-km cycling trial,
     and blood was drawn just as before.

     And what was used as placebo:
     The answer to this question is extremely enlightening,
     especially if you’ve ever heard someone say that ASEA
     is just salt water. In the research that was conducted by
     the Human Performance Laboratory, the placebo was salt
     water! In other words, the research compared ASEA to
     salt water and found significant and substantial differences,
     so there is no way anyone can ever say that ASEA
     is simply salt water.

     And the results of the research:
     A. The researchers expected to see some difference in
     metabolite shift between ASEA and the placebo. However,
     they expected to see those shifts AFTER exercise, since
     most researched supplements express metabolite shifts
     due to the combination of supplement and exercise.
     To their surprise, they found that athletes who drank
     ASEA experienced a significant shift in metabolites PRIOR
     to exercise. In total, researchers found a shift in 43
     metabolites simply from drinking ASEA, even before they
     began to cycle. The results were so extraordinary that Dr.
     Neiman said, “When I saw it, I couldn’t believe it.”

     Including explaining what are metabolites since it’s a relatively new field of science too:
     A. Metabolism is the name we give to the chemical reactions
     that take place inside our cells in order to sustain
     life. Metabolites are the molecules that participate in our
     metabolism cycles. They are very small molecules in the
     blood that shift in response to supplementation and/or exercise.
     Metabolomics, the study of these metabolite shifts,
     is the very latest tool used by researchers to understand
     what effects supplementation has in the human body.

     And WHY the shift in metabolites was so surprising:
     A. In this research, 108 metabolites were mapped, and
     so the first thing that caught the scientists off guard was
     that a shift in 43 metabolites represented about 40% of
     the total. When you consider that most supplements may
     shift 10-20 metabolites, the sheer number of shifts was
     enough to get the researchers’ attention.
     But even more surprising, these shifts occurred PRIOR to
     exercise. Most supplements tested by the Human Performance
     Lab express metabolite shifts AFTER exercise. In
     other words, most supplements cause metabolite shifts
     when combined with exercise. ASEA, on the other hand,
     caused a major shift in metabolites even before the athletes
     began cycling. Simply drinking ASEA caused these
     shifts.

     And what shifts in metabolites even means:
     A. The specific metabolite shifts in the athletes who
     drank ASEA pointed mostly to a vast mobilization of free
     fatty acids. Fatty acids are the main source of fuel for the
     body, and they mostly come from fat stores in the body
     known as adipose tissue.

     And why a shift in free fatty acids is significant:
     A. When anyone, athlete or not, begins to exercise, the
     muscles need fuel. Initially, the fuel source for this physical
     effort is blood glucose and muscle glycogen. When
     muscle glycogen is depleted, the body shifts to another
     source of fuel: fatty acids from adipose tissue. The body
     converts triglycerides in adipose tissue into free fatty
     acids, which “mobilizes” those fatty acids – puts them in
     the blood stream for the muscles to use as fuel.
     What makes the research results so surprising is that even
     before exercise – before using muscle glycogen to the
     point of depletion – fatty acids are mobilized and ready
     to use as fuel for the muscles. The body is being “primed
     for exercise,” as one Ph.D. on the research team put it.

     And what effect this has on muscle glycogen:
     A. The implication is that muscle glycogen is likely being
     spared by drinking ASEA. While further research is being
     done to confirm this, the ramifications are huge. Athletes
     take months to train their bodies to spare glycogen and
     use fatty acids as fuel. And here it appears to be happening
     simply from drinking ASEA.

     And why the findings are also significant to non-athletes:
     The mobilization of free fatty acids is incredible news
     for athletes, but it also has meaning for the rest of us,
     as well. Once these fatty acids are mobilized, they will
     be used by the body as fuel. They are the primary fuel
     source for a body at rest. The body needs fuel simply to
     stay alive, so the freed-up fatty acids will be burned no
     matter what.

     And why we’re not claiming to be a weight-loss product:
     It is wrong to think of ASEA as a weight-loss product.
     Exercise is a weight-loss product. Proper nutrition is a
     weight-loss product. But that said, one very clear conclusion
     coming from the research is this: If you want to burn
     more fat during exercise, drink ASEA.

     And what did it mean when they saw an increase in abscorbic acid:
     The research did show a spike in the body’s production
     of ascorbic acid post-exercise, but it’s simply too
     early to draw any conclusions about what this means.
     Further research will be done to learn more.

     And how redox signaling tied in with the research:
     A. Redox Signaling works on a cellular level, and its
     primary functions ensure the ongoing vitality of our cells,
     including proper cell metabolism. Metabolites are the
     “fingerprints” left behind during cell metabolism, an
     indication of the chemical reactions that take place inside
     the cell. This research helps reveal some of the effects of
     the world’s first and only Redox Signaling supplement on
     cell metabolism.

     http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_MetaboliteFindings_FAQ_May2012.pdf

     And here are the research summaries of the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY explained. Apparently Narad and WLU would prefer that we let complicated test results just stand on their own without being explained to laymen but our business is to inform laymen so I’m glad they took the time to use YouTube as a method to distribute READILY AVAILABLE EASILY ACCESSIBLE WORLD-WIDE INFORMATION. http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Research_Summary_Presentation.pdf

     Now that we have our DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY, we have decided to finally DO FURTHER testing that is PUBLISHABLE… see, because ONLY NOW do we have enough information to go on to actually be able to present something with meaningful results that also tells a story.

     I hope this clears up the misinformation out there. Call me in April Carassius when we have the published study you need or I would be glad to send you a case for FREE just so you could try it and report back on here about your experience for us? Hopefully you will have a cut or burn so you can watch it work right before your eyes, it just gives you a visual of “if it works like this on skin cells outside my body, what must it be doing INSIDE the cells in my brain and heart and digestive tract?” Ideally, it is best to give it 90 days but most people see results within 30 days. It’s fun to watch good health unfold for you. Just email me your address information, tracypowersking@gmail.com. Thank you much!

243. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:43 am

     Sarah, WOW that was some good info in those links… you’re a better researcher than ME! Not that anyone on here will open them up but I sure did, thank you so much!!! Takes the “magic” out of all the results people are seeing. Friend me on Facebook if you’re on there OK? I’d love to keep in touch. Tracy Powers King

244. # Amaltheaon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:49 am

     TracyKing said: “ASEA is not is saying it cures diseases! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!”

     I beg to differ, YOU are saying that. Did you expect us all to have forgotten your previous claims of cures by the time we got to this post?

     TracyKing said: “Of course I know about the placebo effect! But animals don’t know about placebo. I’ve seen dogs with limps walk normally after drinking it for 3 days. I’ve seen horses with conjunctivitis in the eyes be cleared up in hours. My daughter had pink eye, one spray at night and it was gone the next day (forgot to spray the other eye though but that was easy enough to remedy). It helped my 10-year tinnitus in 3 weeks and the numbness and tingling down my arm from an 8-month old bulging disc problem at C5-C6, my years-old bacterial infection in my eyes cleared up after 3 weeks of spraying even though the warm compresses and continuous lens cleanings didn’t work. My cat’s abcess cleared up in less than 10 hours. Did my cat know about the placebo effect? Did my plant know about it, because I bought identical peace lillies and sprayed them with water and ASEA but the ASEA one thrived? Did my friend who had has a 20-year-old disabled sister tell her that her diaper rash would clear up if she sprayed it because it did clear up despite dozens of medications that didn’t work. Did my nursing home friend tell the old lady with the bed sore that ASEA THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER BY A FRIEND was going to help it even though she’d tried antibiotics for 8 months to no avail? I only know of one hospice story and it was my friend in Berea KY who was given it by a friend, she didn’t pay for it, nobody is prEying on hospice people, good Lord! Her hair grew back black at the base of her neck, she started gaining weight and she’s out of hospice care now.”

     TracyKing said: “we don’t NEED peer-reviewed studies BECAUSE WE’RE A SUPPLEMENT NOT A DRUG!”

     If ASEA can do what you claim in the long quote above, it most certainly IS a drug and needs to be tested so any possible side effects or long term effects can be discovered. Anything which manipulates the biochemistry of the body has a chance of screwing up something else.

     I’m sorry, Ms. King, but one doesn’t have to be a scientist or medically trained person to see the total disconnect between some of your posts. It’s simply a matter of being able to think logically. As a result you are not only making yourself look foolish to the pros here, you’re also looking foolish to the untrained people like myself as well.

245. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:51 am

     @ Scott, it’s not and will never be a drug. It is the exact molecular composition as what’s inside all living cells, it’s NATIVE to the body, to my knowledge there’s never been a supplement available that is already NATIVE to the body, it is man-made but the atomic make-up is the same as what is already in you, it’s just that your body doesn’t make enough of it as you age. If you could just find this lying around outside the body then it wouldn’t be patentable but it takes a PROCESS to make and stabilize the mixture, that’s what we’ve obtained patents on. But just think about it… your body is made up of SALT WATER — tears, semen, amniotic fluid, saliva — we’re walking bags of salt water. If you were going to make something that could go INSIDE living cells, and even cross the blood brain barrier — what would YOU make it out of? Berries? Nope, blueberries are good for us but our bodies aren’t made of blueberries. Antioxidants? Nope, plant-based antioxidants protect the PLANT from which they came, but your body makes its own INTERNAL antioxidants called glutathione, superoxide dismutase and catalase and they’ve done testing on ASEA that proves that we can increase the internal production of antioxidants by 500% which returns our body’s production to a level that is similar to what a level we had back when we were children when we healed quickly from cuts, we slept like rocks, we played hard and never got sore, we had abundant energy… neat huh?

246. # Scotton 21 Dec 2012 at 11:02 am

     @ Scott, it’s not and will never be a drug.

     A meaningless marketing BS statement. If it has the effects claimed, it’s a drug. Full stop.

     The purported important of being “NATIVE” to the body just proves (if any further proof were needed) that you haven’t even the faintest clue what you’re talking about. All SORTS of drugs (including some labelled as “supplements”) are molecules which naturally occur in the body, but need their levels adjusted for one reason or another.

247. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:15 am

     @Amalthea you neglected to include the rest of my comment that was RIGHT AFTER what you posted. “I’m trying to be compliant here…” I was trying to stick to things that were just about symptoms not diseases.

     And we DO have 20 years of safety and toxicity studies when it spent 16 years being developed AS A DRUG but for which that was abandoned when it was determined that it was in fact NATIVE TO THE BODY, scientists unknowingly discovered how to make something that was already present inside living human cells.

     We have double blind safety studies including:
     in vitro chromosmal aberration cytoxicity 2005 done at NAMSA in Northwood, Ohio, an independent lab with affiliates worldwide;
     2 genotoxicity studies in 2005
     another genotoxicity study in 2006
     a gene expression toxicity study in 2005
     University of of Albany Functional Genomic Center gene expression analysis for toxicity study 2005 and 2006
     acute intravenous toxicity study at Biological Test Center in Irvine California in 1994
     a Rising Dose Tolerance Study at WIL Research in Ashland Ohio in 2002
     a 4-Week Toxicity Study
     a Peripheral Blood Micronucleus Study at NAMSA in 2006
     a 3-Day Acute Toxicity Study by James Clagett, Ph.D., Snohomish, Washington
     Central Nervous and Behavioral Effects Nasal Study in 2006.

     10 in all, see them at http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Safety_Studies_for_Website.pdf which has been referenced previously.

248. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:16 am

     @ Scott, these are the OFFICIAL CLAIMS made by the company, all compliant: http://www.asea.net/usa/product/why-do-i-need-it

249. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:25 am

     But just think about it… your body is made up of SALT WATER — tears, semen, amniotic fluid, saliva — we’re walking bags of salt water.

     It’s a good thing I hadn’t yet picked up the coffee when getting to this one. Tracy, perhaps you’d like to explain why the concentrations of sodium and potassium are drastically different between blood and cytosol.

250. # Harriet Hallon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:33 am

     “You should check out Jim Humble and MMR ”

     We have checked out Jim Humble and MMS (not MMR). See: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/bleaching-away-what-ails-you/

251. # Scotton 21 Dec 2012 at 11:38 am

     @ Tracy:

     They are “compliant” only in that “purchased favorable legislation” sense. Anything that modifies immune function, for example, is definitely a drug by any rational standard.

     As a very broad rule, structure/function claims are either (a) meaningless or (b) drug claims. If it DOESN’T treat any disease or condition, there is no reason that anyone would ever want to buy it. It’s false advertising, plain and simple.

     “Fraud” is also a term which could very reasonably be applied.

252. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:42 am

     AND these 35 pages of DOUBLE BLIND safety studies performed by James Clagett, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from University of Nebraska, Chief Science Officer of LifeNet Health, an independent lab of 38 scientists and engineers with an annual research budget in excess of $7m.

     http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/TS2700.pdf

253. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:45 am

     @ Harriett, thanks for the link, since my mom has Alzheimer’s I had already heard of his research but didn’t know what to think of it. But frankly, judging from your quick dismissal of this product without doing your due diligence, I’d have to doubt anything you have to say about any product.

254. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:47 am

     @ Scott, what’s your background? I think you missed some business classes?

255. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:52 am

     @ Narad, metaphorically speaking of course, geez, lighten up! If you need fluids at the hospital, do they give you water? No they give you saline. You’d die without the proper amount of salt water fluid in your body which is about 75% in the body, 80% in the brain. But I’d like to have seen you spit out your coffee!

256. # Harriet Hallon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:55 am

     I apologize to our readers for inadvertently unleashing this torrent of … I’ll be polite and not give it a name. I do not, however, apologize for my article. I stand by what I wrote, and this outburst shows why writing it was necessary. ASEA supporters: please go away and don’t come back until you have the kind of evidence required to support any scientific claim.

257. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 12:10 pm

     Asea is not at liberty to publish all the findings and research that Medical Discoveries Inc. (MDI) completed because MDI was working through the FDA in the pharmaceutical realm.

     Sarah, this statement is nonsensical. To whatever extent the FDA is able to rely on proprietary data in the drug approval process, it has nothing at all to do with the ability of the owner to release the information.

258. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 12:15 pm

     If you need fluids at the hospital, do they give you water? No they give you saline.

     Allow me to remind you that you were jabbering about “what’s inside all living cells.”

259. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 12:25 pm

     @ Harriett, just go ahead and say it like you did in your private email to me… I believe you said “pearls to swine” as if I’m not fit to participate in this discussion board. As if your information is not capable of being understood by me because I’m swine and you’re pearls referring to BIBILICAL scripture of all things, now that’s Christian of you! Well if Ph.D.’s in chemistry and NMR were the only ones reading your “bullshit” article, which is the word you used to describe ASEA, then I’d be glad to let it stand. We don’t need their endorsement. But the problem is that people who just want their knees to stop hurting when they walk up and down the stairs (and their Celebrex is causing gastrointestinal problems)… you just closed the door for that person to even try ASEA on a money-back guarantee. That’s on YOUR conscience when you realize a year from now or 10 years from now (however long it takes because we’re NOT going away), how much damage you caused and how many lives you negatively impacted just because of your short-sightedness and your inability to suspend your disbelief for even a second. And I wish you’d change the name of this thread from “Fan Mail” since it’s a simple rebuttal of the misinformation you’re proud to disseminate. I’m just a well-meaning person who has ALSO thoroughly and thoughtfully studied the research and come to a different conclusion than you. I flew to the corporate headquarters and met the founders and the scientists and went to their conferences to meet the calibur of people ASEA is attracting, did you? Did you do anything except some quick google searches. Shame on you.

260. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 12:39 pm

     @Dr. Hall:

     I reckon it isn’t that big of a deal. The real science and fun stuff has already been discussed and the points made. At this point the two of them of just making a mockery of, well, themselves!

     I’m sure once myself (soon) and other become tired of posting here it will die down anyways. I find it an interesting look into the motivated reasoning of a couple of people duped into thinking ASEA is anything but salt water. I’m still trying to figure out how much True Believer ™, active and knowing scam work, and “I got suckered into an MLM so I have to sell my stuff or I lose money” they actually are.

261. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 12:46 pm

     @tracy:

     I’ve already referenced the DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED CROSSOVER RANDOMIZED INDEPENDENT STUDY, see these two links:

     Hey Tracy – you know what would be a LOT better than a YouTube video explaining the study? How about the actual study itself!. You do realize that there are a number of us here that are actually qualified to read and understand medical and scientific studies, right? And that until we do, we aren’t going to budge.

     You think you are flinging more and more and better stuff our way and act amazed that we haven’t changed our stance after a manic deluge of words strung together in (mostly) grammatically correct sentences. You aren’t – you are flinging more and more of the same garbage and are unreasonably amazed that we don’t find it compelling.

     We are very simple people – no need for a lot of words. Just data. Actual science. Not link after link from ASEA themselves, with supposed data not published anywhere else.

     So as doctor hall said, either put up or shut up.

     But whatever, in the meantime WLU and others can handily take down every bit of piffle you sling our way.

     I will make one point though:

     Narad, metaphorically speaking of course, geez, lighten up! If you need fluids at the hospital, do they give you water? No they give you saline. You’d die without the proper amount of salt water fluid in your body which is about 75% in the body, 80% in the brain.

     Not true. We often give just plain water with a little glucose in it. It isn’t always saline. And even it we did only give saline… what’s the difference between my salt water and your salt water besides magic?

262. # Amaltheaon 21 Dec 2012 at 12:48 pm

     @Dr. Hall: It hasn’t been a total waste. I’ve learned some things from reading the responses to/discussions started by points in the Believer’s Walls ‘O Spam. I’m sure some other people have as well.

263. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:01 pm

     @ Narad it was a BIG DEAL for us to get approval by the FDA to publicly use the safety studies that MDI-P performed on their solution when it was being developed as a drug… HUGE!

     All life processes take place inside of our cells. In the simplest definition, a cell is a tiny bag filled with salt water and organic chemicals. The bag itself is made out of a bi-lipid membrane (a thin sheet that has waterproof layers on both sides and a thin layer of fat in between). All of the materials that the cell needs to maintain life must be passed through this membrane into the inside of the cell and also all of the unneeded garbage that is generated inside the cell needs to be passed back out through this membrane to the outside of the cell. The cell manufactures certain portals or gateways, called receptors and co-receptors, that are embedded in the cell membrane to let the materials in and out and to pass chemical messages from the outside to the inside of the cell and vice versa. Everything that affects the cell must be able either to pass through these portals or to diffuse through the membrane.

     In the middle of each cell there is another smaller double bag (made from two bi-lipid membranes) that contains the nucleus and the DNA. The DNA has encoded instruction on how and when to build the proteins that the cell uses. A DNA strand is made out of two molecular spines twisted into a double helix. Between the spines there can be found only four distinct types of molecules called nucelotides (labeled A, T, C, G) which are arranged in sequenced groups like rungs on a ladder. Groups of three of these rungs are called “codons” (A-T-G, for example). The exact sequence of these codons in the DNA strand determinds the specific ordeer in which amino acides are chained together (called polypeptied chains) in order to form proteins, thousands and thousands of different varieties. Most of the cell’s machinery and inner structure is formed out of the proteins manufactured from these genetic instructions. One exception to this rule is the formation of an organelle called the Mitochondrion. The Mitochondria (plural) contain their own DNA (called mtDNA) formed in circular strands, and they divide and reproduce inside the cell much like bacteria divide, but are controlled and regulated by messengers from the nucleus. The Mitochondria’s primary job is to efficiently produce the fuel (ATP) that energizes the micro machines inside the cell that carry out the life processes. There are anywhere from 10 to 5000 Mitochonodria in a typical cell, taking up to 50% of the cell’s volume.

     In theory, the DNA sequences of instructions (genes) inside any given cell in your body are entirely identitical to the DNA sequences (genes) that are in every other cell (with the exception of the reproductive cells). Lately researchers have cloned whole animals by placing the DNA from a single skin cell inside an empty egg cell. The egg cell starts to divide and form a complete organism. The DNA package inside every cell in the animal has all of the instructions necessary to form a whole new animal. This begs the question: If the DNA in every cell is identical, then how does there come to be so many different varieties of cells and tissues, brain cells, bone cells, skin cells, liver cells, etc? The answer to this question is found in the understanding that the individual cells do not act alone, they are grouped and bound together into tissues.

     The genes activated in the individual cells depend largely on messengers sent back and forth from their neighbors and are specific to where the cells are located in the body. After a while, the chemical messages sent from the surrounding cells activate the genes that determine the behavior of all the cells that collectively form similar tissue. So in a real sense, the cellular function is determined by the environment in which it lives. Cells, in this sense, “become what they eat.”

     The ability of a cell to change its form and function depending on the messengers surrounding it is called “cellular differentiation.” A cell gains its identify (brain, muscle, liver, etc) from the messengers it finds around it and/or builds inside it. A recent triumph in science came when “stem cells” were discovered. These cells can take the form of any cell they come into contact with (they are undifferentiated cells). If you want to grow new brain cells, for example, then all that is required is to place stem cells in the brain. They will soon transform into new brain cells that fit flawlessly into their new environment as they are programmed to become new brain cells by their neighboring cells. This also happens if they are placed in the liver, heart, etc., the stem cells ultimately become similar to the cells that surround them. It is an interesting fact that the cells in your body can also genetically shift due to the intake of nutrients that you eat. What you eat can literally change the form and genetic function of your cells. There have been experiements with identical twins in mice, both having exactly the same DNA, that were fed different diets. One mouse grew shiny brown fur and was skinny the other grew light gold fur and was fat and sickly. The only difference between the two mice was in what they ate.

     In order for a cell to be healthy, it needs proper nutrients and oxygen. IT TAKES THESE THINGS FROM THE FLUIDS THAT SURROUND IT. Nutrients and oxygen are normally supplied by the blood. It may be surprising to some that cells can even survive outside the body just fine if they are given enough nutrients and oxygen. There are human tissue cultures in laboratores that are still alive that have been taken from people who died 50 years ago. If a cell is given the necessary raw materials, it can manufacture its own fuel and the micro machines that use this fuel to keep it alive. Just with a handful of different varieties of amino acids, it can create complex proteins, duplicate itself and maintain its form and function indefinitely or until it eventually becomes broken or damaged for some reason. Oxygen is essential for healthy cell function. This can easily be experienced if you hold your breath for more than a minute; your system screams for more oxygen (less carbon dioxide). IF OUR CELLS ARE HEALTHY, THEN WE ARE HEALTHY. It is as simple as that. In order to maintain our health, we must learn to provide our body with the nutrients that our cells need to survive and thrive. When the cells become damaged, for whatever reason, we must be able to give the body the raw materials it needs to heal itself, replacing the damaged cells with healthy new ones. If we do this, then the body can the rest – this is simple in principle but much harder in practice.

     See I didn’t have to talk about disease so that we understand cellular health. Narad, you were saying about those bags of salt water that we’re made up?…

264. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:04 pm

     @ nybrgus my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution. Have you been paying any attention?

265. # Amaltheaon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:14 pm

     @TracyKing: “my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution. Have you been paying any attention”
     Then please send samples to several independent labs and show us the proof!

266. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:27 pm

     ROS and RS are the smallest and most fundamental universal signaling molecules in the body are the simple but extremely important reactive molecules that are formed from combinations of the atoms (Na, Cl, H, O, N) readily found in the SALT WATER bath that fills the inside of the cells (cytosol). All of life’s players (kinases, ATP, ribosomes, mRNA, RNAP, helicase, DNA) float around in this bath and can be surrounded by a balanced mixture of these reactive molecules. These are just a few of these reactive molecules but there are 20 in all: superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorous acid, nitric oxide, charged metal ions making up the electric current that carries signals along our nerves and muscles (including calcium ions, potassium ions and sodium ions), cytokines (the messengers that activate and regulate the immune system, controlling inflammation, white blood cell movement and natural cell death), endocrine messengers (the messengers that regulate and control digestion, metabolism, and organ function), hormones (the messengers that determine tissue growth and reproductive function), transcription factors (the messengers that cause the DNA inside the nucleus to call for increased production or reduction of certain specific proteins). And then there’s enzymes which are the break-it-down, clean-it-up and recycle-it crew of antioxidants and proteases, among others.

     For the most part, the cellular micro machinery is controlled by the varioius signaling messengers that carry messages insdie the individual cells (intracellular communication) as well as carrying messages between cells (intercellular communication). As has already been mentioned, the very identity and behavior of the cell depends on the quantities and types of messengers being passed around in its surrounding environment.

     The intracellular messengers float around inside the sea-water solution (cytosol) inside the cells. There are generally two types of intercellular messengers 1) messengers that are regulated by the DNA and built, delievered, passed around and moedified by enzymes and cellular machinery, and 2) A RECENTLY DISCOVERED NETWORK OF MESSENGERS CALLED “REDOX SIGNALING AND REGULATION” messengers made out of small, highly-reactive molecules (ROS and RS) that are formed by the REDuction and OXidation (redox) of the very SEA-WATER BATH that surrounds all of this cellular machinery. These messengers modify the behavior of the machinery by changing the chemical potential in the SALT-WATER environment where all of this machinery exists. Since these “redox” messengers are integrally involved in the healing process, hence the breakthrough in being able to create them outside the body and keep them stabilized until inside the body where they can do their respective jobs.

267. # JJ Borgmanon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:32 pm

     Ms. Kings 1:01 post courtesy Anthony Palombo, DC, ACN. Little original material added to massive cut and paste of his March 18 2011 blog in “The Health Light Newsletter” also posted with ASEA among others.

     Ms. King,

     I think it’s been made abundantly clear that that pulling anything out of your bag apart from empirical evidence for ASEA claims is truly a waste of your time.

     The really nice thing, though, is how many google hits for SBM this drawn out commentary should produce for your target audience. While much of that group will cheer you on, I feel confident a few of them will take pause and will turn away from the woo. I used to follow the woo before I actually started looking into it. I got away; others will, too. For that I say “thanks!.

268. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:35 pm

     @ Amalthea, we’ve already done so:
     http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/Reactive_Molecules_Verification_US_ENG.pdf

     In addition to that testing, the information presented at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxyufw4A90k describes at the one minute mark the testing that we did using NMR technology and which will be the focus of an upcoming publishable study that we EXPECT to be released in the spring. Obviously, we have NO CONTROL on WHEN it will be published but when it is, I will be back on this website to update everyone or if you want to give me your email, I can send it to you as soon as I get it if you do not check back to this website frequently. My email address is tracypowersking@gmail.com.

269. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:44 pm

     Like I said before William, there is credible, 3rd party research publications coming.

     Yet you and Tracy persist in posting noncredible publications as if they were meaningful…you could save a lot of typing by simply waiting until they are published and then droping a link in the comments.

     they are already affecting quite some revenue streams in the pharma industry.

     Oh look more paranoia. Yes, “Big Pharma” is going to sue people because you’re taking away all of their diseases. Good one. Yes, they are the greedy ones, with their requirements for proof and good manufacturing practices. You poor, innocent sellers of miracles are so persecuted, what with your complete lack of proof and giving away salt water for free.

     Also, again, patents are not proof. Efficacy is not required for patents. If you want to impress me, show me FDA approval, not patents, paranoid claims about how Big Pharma wants people to be sick and how ASEA cures everything while carefully making it clear that you’re not really claiming it cures everything. You and Tracy seem to have a curious idea that you can make up for poor-quality evidence through volume. I assure you, this is not the case. When your peer-reviewed publications arrive, I assure you I am entertained enough to review them.

     Do you really think spamming us with useless information will actually further your cause? I feel like when my 8 year old nephew sprays me with silly string thinking it will actually incapacitate me if he just sprays enough of it.

     Actually, your nephew has a much greater chance of success. Quite literally if he uses enough silly string he will succeed in incapacitating you. He’ll just need a couple hundred cans and a lot of patience. Tell him he’s better off hitting you with a hammer or something.

     What else do we have…blah blah blah more youtube (again, are you aware of some sort of quality-control process at Youtube that I’m not? ‘Cause generally they’ll let you post anything that’s not a copyright violation or pornography). I’m not interested in a youtube summary of research, I want the publication. It’s not hard, even just the PMID or DOI would help. Last I checked, Youtube wasn’t a peer-reviewed journal.

     Blah blah blah more claims of positive results without replication, more discussion of MLM as if it had anything to do with scientific efficacy (I don’t doubt MLM is a good business model – for the business – but that doesn’t mean their products do what is claimed), some crap about metabolite shifts (PMID please, not a bunch of PDFs from a company’s website), a bunch of claims indicating the outside and inside of the body are apparently exactly the same (do you know what the liver is? Do you have one outside of your body?), some garbage about how eating what you need is the same thing as producing it internally (question – have you ever grown an apple or pork chop on your body? If so – see a doctor; if not, perhaps consider the implications for consumed substances. The process to get drugs to their metabolically active site is quite involved, simply swallowing something won’t cut it – your body is very good at breaking things down into simple components and buffering to preserve homeostasis), ten studies in mice, rabbits, dogs and bacteria (you should know, I am not a mouse, rabbit, dog or bacteria, so perhaps these might not apply to me), a couple metaphors (because there’s no reality to point to), and this:

     AND these 35 pages of DOUBLE BLIND safety studies performed by James Clagett, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from University of Nebraska, Chief Science Officer of LifeNet Health, an independent lab of 38 scientists and engineers with an annual research budget in excess of $7m.

     Which hilariously includes the statement “There were no biologically significant alterations in the anatomy, behavior, clinical chemical and hematological parameters of blood [in rabbits]“. Awesome. That hole in your foot? It’s from shooting yourself. Incidentally, can I have the peer-reviewed journal where these results were published? No? How surprising!

270. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:48 pm

     @ JJ, actually your information INCORRECT, it came from “The Science of Healing Revealed” book by Dr. Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. in Atomic/Medical Physics who was hired by ASEA to do testing on the solution to figure out WHY it was having the effects it was having, and HOW to keep it shelf stable without the solution turning back into salt water and the reactive molecules becoming inactive. Dr. Samuelson remains an independent consultant…

     “Dr. Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. (Atomic and Medical Physics, University of Utah), is an independent advisor to
     various companies in the health science industry, with specialties in safe, stable nonparticle structures and
     redox signaling molecules, helping them build a science-based research platform for several promising emerging technologies.”

     Would you like me to email you a copy of his book so you can read it in its entirety? Just send me your email.

     And TO BE CLEAR, I’m not writing to elicit support, I’m trying to clear up misinformation so people who read this can make a more informed decision. IF NOTHING ELSE, this discussion should PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that ASEA is MORE THAN JUST SALT WATER which was the premise of Ms. Hall’s “smoking gun” expose. The fact that the metabolites study used salt water as the placebo control and that we have obtained patents on the process to convert salt water to a different solution more than satisfies the criteria to prove this point.

     And here is another safety study performed by the PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY obviously with this disclaimer: *PNNL does not in any way endorse ASEA, it merely acted as an INDEPENDENT LABORATORY in performing and producing these test results. http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/ASEA_Safety_US_ENG.pdf

271. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:50 pm

     Not true. We often give just plain water with a little glucose in it. It isn’t always saline.

     I’ve heard that flat Coca-Cola works to supply IV fluids in a pinch.

272. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:54 pm

     @ WLU “Yet you and Tracy persist in posting noncredible publications as if they were meaningful…you could save a lot of typing by simply waiting until they are published and then droping a link in the comments.”

     IF HARRIETT CAN POST DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT HAS THOROUGHLY BEEN VETTED THEN WE CAN DAMN SURE POST REBUTTALS! There are other ways to determine the effiicacy and credibility of a product without needing someone else to do it for you through a published study. It’s called a BRAIN, use it.

     Does anybody know WLU? I’m beginning to think HE is a paid consultant for “Big Pharma” or a Washington lobbyist? Any credentials WLU so I can check you out? What’s your angle? How do you profit if Big Pharma keeps their monopoly on information disseminated to the public?

273. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 1:56 pm

     The cell manufactures certain portals or gateways, called receptors and co-receptors, that are embedded in the cell membrane to let the materials in and out and to pass chemical messages

     Nope. You are referring to channels, not receptors. Receptors do pass on chemical messages (though no known cellular membrane receptors exist for transduction of ROS/RS signals), but do not allow materials in or out of the cell.

     Cells, in this sense, “become what they eat.”

     Nope. You are now trying to speak on deco-bio or developmental biology. The cells do not differentiate based on “what they eat” they differentiate based on different signals sent during varying times at development based on gene clusters called homeobox and sonic hedgehog (among other but those are two principle ones). The cells themselves secrete signalling and messaging molecules – none of which are ROS/RS – to differentiate. Otherwise, there would be no way to define a border between, say, the edge of the liver and the start of the peritoneum. External influences can affect this by messing with the signal molecules released by the cells, but doing anything other than screwing up the process is insanely difficult. Which is why it is big news that scientists have, for the first time this year, been able to succesfully de-differentiate cells. We have just now been able to manipulate these devo-bio signals for the first time and we know it is insanely complex and not dependent on ROS/RS signalling.

     If you want to grow new brain cells, for example, then all that is required is to place stem cells in the brain.

     Bullsh!t. We have been trying to do that for decades now. Injecting stem cells into the CNS has proven to not work. Not without significant modification and induction which we are just barely starting to be able to do. And certainly not from drinking magical salt water.

     It is an interesting fact that the cells in your body can also genetically shift due to the intake of nutrients that you eat.

     [citation needed]

     It may be surprising to some that cells can even survive outside the body just fine if they are given enough nutrients and oxygen

     LOL. Not to us here. I’ve worked with cell cultures before. Dr. Hall has reviewed and recommended the book (which I also recommend) called The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.

     See I didn’t have to talk about disease so that we understand cellular health. Narad, you were saying about those bags of salt water that we’re made up?

     No, but your pathetically simplistic and factually incorrect attempt to teach us here about cell biology sure was entertaining. Granted, I’d be pretty stoked if my 8 year old nephew could get this much. But if I were teaching a bunch of undergrad intro to bio students and they wrote something similar for a term paper I would fail them.

     my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution.

     Ahem, we still don’t actually have any evidence of that. At all.

     But it is nice to skim through your obviously cut and pasted ASEA corporate talking points. LOL.

274. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 1:58 pm

     @WLU:

     Actually, your nephew has a much greater chance of success. Quite literally if he uses enough silly string he will succeed in incapacitating you. He’ll just need a couple hundred cans and a lot of patience. Tell him he’s better off hitting you with a hammer or something.

     Now that got a belly laugh out of me. You are, of course, correct. There is actually much more prior plausibility to being incapacitated with silly string than being convinced by these atrociously bag arguments.

275. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 1:59 pm

     To Dr. Hall and everyone else – my apologies. I am enjoying this hugely, but it must be a tremendous strain on the servers and your patience. If the editors of this blog want this poisoned fruit to wither, just let me know and I’ll stop posting. No matter how much fun it is. Such delicious snark, it’s worthy of a sock puppet.

     @Nybgrus:
     

     I’m still trying to figure out how much True Believer ™, active and knowing scam work, and “I got suckered into an MLM so I have to sell my stuff or I lose money” they actually are.

     Have you read Mistakes were made? The chapter discussing eschatological cults is quite applicable (and depressing) – someone who wastes an enormous amount of time and money will undergo the most astonishing mental gymnastics to avoid admitting they got suckered. At least nobody’s children are being raped in this case…though I have no doubt some are using miracle salt water as a substitute for vaccination

     Jesus Tracy, a comically simple primer on cell biology a) doesn’t teach anyone here anything and b) doesn’t mean your product works. Yes, conceptually it’s easy to treat disease, but your comments are about as useful and meaningful as saying launching a satelite is simple, just get it high enough in the air, or that world hunger is easy to fix because you just have to make sure you feed everyone. Oh, and you still don’t grasp that the word “health” is pretty meaningless. Chemotherapy is the process of systematically sickening cells, but it’s an effective treatment for cancer. Please use this as a segue into how ASEA can cure cancer, I really want to hear it, and this time I promise to believe you uncritically. Your ongoing primers on cell signaling are, well I won’t use the word “interesting”, so I’ll just call them “there”, but again – showing a very basic grasp of biology doesn’t mean ASEA is effective. Your charicature is pseudoscience, because it attempts to paper over the massive gap in evidence with superficial and meaningless patter. Please, go away or put in some pubmed numbers whose abstracts involve ASEA, humans and objective measures.

276. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 2:01 pm

     next belly laugh came from tracy:

     IF HARRIETT CAN POST DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT HAS THOROUGHLY BEEN VETTED THEN WE CAN DAMN SURE POST REBUTTALS! There are other ways to determine the effiicacy and credibility of a product without needing someone else to do it for you through a published study. It’s called a BRAIN, use it.

     Tracy, WLU is absolutely spot on with his critiques.

     And no, you can’t post a rebuttal before you have evidence because the claim is that you don’t have evidence.

     And that last line of advice is best suited for you. I suggest you try and head it well.

277. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 2:03 pm

     @narad:

     I’ve heard that flat Coca-Cola works to supply IV fluids in a pinch.

     I have heard the same thing. I haven’t vetted it myself though so I am unsure.

     All things being equal, I would probably opt for some bleached then boiled and cooled water with around 1tsp of salt and 1tbsp of sugar per liter if I really needed IV fluids in such a pinch. Though, in a true emergency that would take too long and I reckon flat coke could be handy in that case, assuming it was remotely feasible which I am not sure of.

278. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 2:06 pm

     For what it is worth, it obviously doesn’t bother me much. I reckon the server load isn’t a big deal and anyone not interested can just stop reading at this point.

     And no, I haven’t read Mistakes were made… though I am well aware of the premise of which you speak.

279. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 2:08 pm

     IF HARRIETT CAN POST DAMAGING INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT HAS THOROUGHLY BEEN VETTED THEN WE CAN DAMN SURE POST REBUTTALS! There are other ways to determine the effiicacy and credibility of a product without needing someone else to do it for you through a published study. It’s called a BRAIN, use it.

     Wow, that last comment is rich. Pointing out your complete lack of convincing evidence isn’t “damaging” so much as it is “factually accurate”. Also, minor point – you are posting a lot of text but you have yet to approach anything close to a rebuttal. There are many ways to test a product, but only human trials can be used in a meaningful way to demonstrate ASEA has any impact on human health. You’re not proving your product effective, you’re proving how credulous you are.

     Does anybody know WLU? I’m beginning to think HE is a paid consultant for “Big Pharma” or a Washington lobbyist? Any credentials WLU so I can check you out? What’s your angle? How do you profit if Big Pharma keeps their monopoly on information disseminated to the public?

     YAY!!!! MY FIRST PHARMA SHILL GAMBIT!!!!!! Does that mean I can start cashing my Evil Pharma Overlord cheques, or collect my Evil Pharma Disneyland tickets?

     Your ad hominen accusations notwithstanding, you’ll notice that accusing me of being a paid shill for Big Pharma hasn’t magically produced any peer reviewed articles indicating your claims have any meaning. You’re now engaging in a bit of a false dilemma, the idea being if you can prove I’m a pharma shill, that means somehow ASEA is indeed magical. The lovely thing about empirical research is it doesn’t matter who makes a claim, what matters is the evidence. You still have’t provided any that matters. Hitler (damn you Godwin!) could be pointing out how empty your claims are, but he’d still be right (despite being Hitler).

     Anyway, amusing as this is, I’ve got a snowy bus ride home to enjoy. I look forward to more drama when I get there though, keep pumping that septic tank of evidence until it’s dry, I forsee myself becoming convinced in the near future.

280. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 2:11 pm

     For what it is worth, it obviously doesn’t bother me much. I reckon the server load isn’t a big deal and anyone not interested can just stop reading at this point.

     That assumes anyone but the four of us are still reading

     And no, I haven’t read Mistakes were made… though I am well aware of the premise of which you speak.

     It’s worth reading – the principles are pretty obvious, even without the research behind it. But they accumulate a tremendous number of convincing examples that are both startling and convincing. It really drives home just how omnipresent the tendency is within humans, it’s a little depressing. It’s also quite a quick book to read, which is nice.

281. # JJ Borgmanon 21 Dec 2012 at 2:15 pm

     Ms. King,

     I realize it’s an ad hominem, but it sure seems clear that one of the two good doctors is plagiarizing the other. That much info/text that can be found in common between a book, which I have not read, and a blog which I have read and your post is not coincidental. But, it has also been sufficiently demonstrated that a tremendous amount of cut-and-paste goes on in wooland, so I suppose it is likely to happen.

     Go ahead, pick a few sentences anywhere in that post and google it. liftingtones.com will display it almost verbatim on the first results page. My problem is it appears you are trying to pass such a post off as original having given no credit to the author. Again, you come off as being dishonest. Or opportunistic. Kind of the same thing, I suppose.

282. # Scotton 21 Dec 2012 at 2:51 pm

     @ Scott, what’s your background? I think you missed some business classes?

     Physics PhD, if you must know.

     You seem to be implying that if my background were in physics, I’d consider lies and fraud to be unremarkable and unobjectionable simply because legislation making them legal in a particular industry had been purchased. (And yes, it was morally equivalent to an outright purchase.)

     Ethical businesspeople the world over weep.

283. # weingon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:18 pm

     “my salt water contains reactive redox signaling molecules suspended in a saline solution.”

     So does my urine. I can bottle it and sell it to you for half price.

284. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:30 pm

     @JJ Dr. Samuelson’s book was copyrighted in 2009 so that pre-dates your 2011 reference. I did not reference Dr. Samuelson YET because I wanted to prove how it doesn’t matter what is posted in support of this product, whether it is written by me or one of your own, you are going to try to pick it apart, so thank you nybgrus for readily rising to my invitation!

     This is the forward in the front of the book:

     Dr. Samuelson has found a way to take a complex and difficult subject and make it lucid and understnadable to the lay reader. It is very rare that someone can convey concepts in science with such clarity and still mainbtain a degree of accuracy and precision. Dr. Samuelson possesses this unique talent; he explains the body’s natural healing process on the molecular level in a way that conserves the precision of the science, and yet exposes the technical terms and underlying concepts in clear language able to be understood by any interested reader.

     The reader stands to gain a much better view of the science of healing and a good understanding of the basic concepts of how the body’s healing process works.

     Chase N. Peterson, MD
     Former President of the University of Utah
     Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard

285. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:34 pm

     So I can see where this is going… I WILL have a publishable study that once and for all proves not only that ASEA is not just salt water but that it creates positive significant shifts in the body and it is safe. But based on the information presented in Mistakes Were Made, all of you will be too invested in your own shared contempt for the research behind this product so you will find fault with the published study… it was bought, manipulated, incorrect. Is this about right?

286. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:35 pm

     I have heard the same thing. I haven’t vetted it myself though so I am unsure.

     Here’s an odd one on the intersection of Coca-Cola and medicine. (I suppose I should have said “degassed” before.)

287. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:54 pm

     you just closed the door for that person to even try ASEA on a money-back guarantee

     Would you like to clarify whether this offer actually requires signing up to a subscription plan first?

288. # JJ Borgmanon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:56 pm

     Ms. King,

     Anything you present is worthy of doubt. You aren’t helping matters by using deception to “…prove how it doesn’t matter what is posted in support of this product…”. Again, you are being dishonest.

     Why ASEA would sell a product making veiled claims, with the proper evidence only a few short months away from release, is, once again, dishonest. It obviously smacks of opportunism.

     Many companies make lofty claims about the effectiveness of their products. They do it in ways that are legal without being honest. Caveat emptor. ASEA is just another one of them. And, true to form, the profit margins are totally off the rails. That makes them, and you, despicable to me…and to many who think like I do.

     I, personally, promise you this: IF your claims end up being justified by proper empirical evidence, not sham evidence, by the Spring (May) of 2013, I will retract anything I have written here that you wish in the fora of your choice. AND, I will buy at least six months worth of ASEA water from you on autoship. IF ASEA does for me what you claim it will do, I will further take a distributorship under you, where you may jest, jostle and flog me at will.

     I am as certain of not having to pay up on this promise as I was that the world would not end today, just for the record. And you have my real name.

289. # Scotton 21 Dec 2012 at 3:56 pm

     Is this about right?

     No. Once you have it, it will be evaluated. Before you have it, YOU don’t know whether ASEA is safe and effective so you have no business selling it!

290. # weingon 21 Dec 2012 at 3:59 pm

     @Tra

291. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 4:18 pm

     AND these 35 pages of DOUBLE BLIND safety studies performed by James Clagett, Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology from University of Nebraska, Chief Science Officer of LifeNet Health, an independent lab of 38 scientists and engineers with an annual research budget in excess of $7m.

     Did you actually read what’s at the other end of the link you provided? “Double blind” doesn’t mean anything when it comes to intraperitoneal injection of rabbits.

292. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 4:23 pm

     appeal to authority now, Tracy?

     If Luc Montagnier and Linus Pauling can be written off as cranks, so can anyone else.

     And of course it doesn’t matter who wrote it! You act as if us picking apart anything worth picking apart is a bad thing! LOL.

     I swear, soon enough I’ll have actual stuff to do and won’t be reading these manic posts any more. Until then, they sure are entertaining!

293. # nybgruson 21 Dec 2012 at 4:28 pm

     @narad:

     This one makes sense to me. They used the acidic coca cola (degassed it would be primarily phosphoric) to both mechanically break up and chemically dissovle the bezoars.

     That doesn’t answer the question about IV administration. And I would reckon it isn’t quite as simple because of the acidic nature of cola, you could probably induce acidosis if you replaced enough fluid with it. Heck you can induce acidosis just from normal saline, because the chloride anion concentration is matched to the sodium cations, so while the sodium is isotonic (which is what matters most for managing osmotic shifts) the chloride is significantly higher than physiological concentrations. This leads to hyperchloremia which can lead to acidosis since the chloride anion is half of a strong acid (the hydrogen in the water of the plasma acts as the counter cation to the excess chloride, and at the right proportion the electrochemical forces favor dissociation of hydrogen ions leading to acidosis).

294. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 4:42 pm

     @ Narad “Would you like to clarify whether this offer actually requires signing up to a subscription plan first?”

     I hardly see how that’s relevant considering that anyone can cancel their auto-ship at any time, even as soon as immediately after their purchase by editing their order on-line or calling the phone number in their confirmation receipt.

295. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 4:49 pm

     ROS and RS are the smallest and most fundamental universal signaling molecules in the body are the simple but extremely important reactive molecules that are formed from combinations of the atoms (Na, Cl, H, O, N) readily found in the SALT WATER bath that fills the inside of the cells (cytosol).

     I take it you missed the part where the cytosol isn’t “SALT WATER.” Have you ever taken a moment to try to think about why cell membranes have a sodium-potassium pump?

296. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 4:54 pm

     I hardly see how that’s relevant considering that anyone can cancel their auto-ship at any time

     It’s relevant because this is a classic scam marker. Moreover, it allows the scammer to keep billing in any event in the hope that the mark won’t notice soon enough to contest the charge with their credit-card company.

297. # Scotton 21 Dec 2012 at 4:55 pm

     I hardly see how that’s relevant considering that anyone can cancel their auto-ship at any time, even as soon as immediately after their purchase by editing their order on-line or calling the phone number in their confirmation receipt.

     It’s quite relevant because making it require effort for people to not continue buying something, decreases the odds that they will do it. Classic method to con customers into buying things they don’t want.

     It doesn’t surprise me that people who sell magic water with fake claims also use dishonest sales strategies.

298. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 4:59 pm

     So I can see where this is going… I WILL have a publishable study that once and for all proves not only that ASEA is not just salt water but that it creates positive significant shifts in the body and it is safe. But based on the information presented in Mistakes Were Made, all of you will be too invested in your own shared contempt for the research behind this product so you will find fault with the published study… it was bought, manipulated, incorrect. Is this about right?

     Yes, in April you will have one study. That’s a good start on the process to demonstrate ASEA has some sort of remarkable properties. Why don’t you save your energy until then. You will note that in science it is a pattern of research built up over years that converges on a conclusion that leads to change in medical practice. We will certainly provide criticisms and suggestions for your paper, then look forward to the next in the program of research required to support a change in practice. If you have a well-controlled study in humans demonstrating significant shifts in biomarkers, that’s a pretty good starting point. However, proving changes to hard end points is a whole other matter. I’m expecting it to be some bullshit animal work, but perhaps I’m wrong.

     So you’re close – we’re unlikely to change our opinions and highly likely to point out any flaws in the study. But I think we can all admit that a peer reviewed paper is a good step in the right directly. Seem to think that research is easy, or that we’re somehow unfairly targeting your salt water. Not so. It’s just that well-supported interventions have years of research, studies and proof behind them. You’re asking to skip over all that work based on anecdote, and that’s not how it’s done. You aren’t special, so far there is no evidence your product is special, and we have good reason to be skeptical of an organization that asks for special dispensation to make money based on unverified claims.

     If you want, we can lay out quite clearly, in advance, a fair set of rules for evaluating the work, we can explain why each rule is important, and what sorts of claims you can make based on those rules. We can provide you the foundation to undertake a program of high-quality research that would be required to change the mind of even the most ardent skeptic, including the FDA – at which point you can make specific claims in your marketing. It’s a win-win! Here’s a starting point:
     - blinding, at least single-blind (the person taking the measurements doesn’t know which condition each subject is under
     - establish, in advance, your outcome measures and statistical tests
     - no subgroup analysis if your initial analysis fails
     - as far as possible, make your outcome measures objective
     - have as large an n as possible (there are sample size calculators you can use to establish power)

     Fellow commentors, any suggestions? I just shoveled 400 pounds of dense, wet snow and I’m tuckered out.

299. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:01 pm

     That doesn’t answer the question about IV administration.

     No, it doesn’t, but I have a fondness for bezoars, as it were. I had already started to wonder about the pH issue.

300. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:06 pm

     @ JJ, that made me smile for the first time. Love your heart. I think that’s MORE than fair. Someone who can admit when he’s wrong and ante up, your breed is few and far between. Maybe this wasn’t a total waste of time after all. For the record, I would love to work with any of you… anybody who is “all in” in their opinions is someone I respect, whether I disagree with them or not. Thanks for a reasonable compromise. As much as you are sure that it WON’T happen, I’m that sure that it WILL.

     And they’re not “veiled” claims, to be honest I think the official claims look EXACTLY like any other product on the supplement market, that’s what makes it hard to stand out. But the reasons all the claims look alike is because the FDA legislates what supplement companies can say about their product and the rules are quite clear. And actually it’s a GOOD thing. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to know who to believe if you were allowed to run info-mercials on a cancer-killing oral drink? What if any company could just make any claim they wanted without having to back it up? I’m glad the rules are in place, it protects the consumer and it holds the supplement companies to a high standard. The crappy companies, and most assuredly many of them ARE MLM, allow false claims to be made because they’re only in it for the short-term, they are going to make their quick buck, get sued, and then be out but with fat pockets. I could name a few but I’d better not, lest this become an MLM thread but I know of several who are marketing on gimmicks but they are just high-priced low-quality commonplace products. In contrast, ASEA is building an infrastructure that will enable them to be an international “legacy” company, capable of enduring decades of market whims, a company that will break the MLM mode and bring some much needed crediblity to the industry. Are there non-compliant claims out there by people who are in shock about what they just witnessed, who don’t KNOW the rules, and who don’t CARE because they’re not really interested in building a business? Absolutely. It’s America after all. But should grandma’s facebook post in any way cause an astute observer like you to hold the corporate office responsible. Hardly.

301. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:17 pm

     Given that Tracy’s psychological self-defense routine has lost anything resembling steam, I’ll offer one more item in the Annals of Coca-Cola Biology.

     Another interesting feature is that laboratory wastes are easy to dispose. Passing through the soil adds a very distinctive flavor which makes the refrigerated extractant freshly after use an interesting beverage.

302. # Chrison 21 Dec 2012 at 5:22 pm

     Rats! I am out of popcorn and my break is over, time to go back to work. Thanks for the amusing reading on this solstice/”the world did not end today” Friday.

303. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 5:29 pm

     
     

     That assumes anyone but the four of us are still reading

     @WLU and nybgrus, Narad, JJ, Scott and Dr. Hall and others – I’m still reading. This is one of the best darn educational experiences I have EVER had! I assure you that your time here is not in vain. You are teaching invaluable life skills and doing so in what I’d consider as a very safe manner. I’d certainly rather learn these critical thinking skills and how to dissect marketing propaganda here on SBM than learn them the hard way after forking out tons of money for any product that appears to promise more than the fountain of youth. I’ve started my own little ‘MLM’ routine. It involves my telling at least one new person every day to read SBM. Indeed, you have my respect, admiration and sincere gratitude. Thank you.

     BTW, the ads state that one can get a “sample” of ASEA to try. Many people consider being offered a sample of a new product as being a free, no-cost sample, but ASEA charges $30 for a 2 ounce sample.

304. # JJ Borgmanon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:37 pm

     Unfortunately, Ms. King, plausibility and probability are not on your side. But, like others on this thread have stated, I am willing to be convinced by proper evidence, but nothing less. Let’s chat again in May.

     Happy Holidays!

305. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:40 pm

     This is one of the best darn educational experiences I have EVER had!

     I’d certainly like to thank nybgrus, as my (quite dated) training was in the physical sciences, and I haven’t really thought about the mechanics of cell membranes since sitting in on psychopharm with Lew Seiden over a decade ago.

306. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:42 pm

     to be honest I think the official claims look EXACTLY like any other product on the supplement market

     You say this like it is a point of pride. Supplement claims are consistently criticized on this site for being unfounded, vague, unproven, deceitful and only possible because of the absurdly weak legislation made possible by lobbyists from Utah. Saying you’re as good and validated as the next supplement company is like bragging you’re just as well-fed as a North Korean peasant, and your power supply is equally reliable.

     But the reasons all the claims look alike is because the FDA legislates what supplement companies can say about their product and the rules are quite clear.

     Yeah, the rules are clear – you can only make structure-function claims (supports eye health! Boosts the immune system) that are meaningless. “Support the immune system is like saying “purple moon happy boots potato thalidomide”. Unlike the FDA regulations for drugs, which are much stricter. You are again meeting a threshold so low it’s worthless, and as your training has made obvious, you are prevented from anything specific (more accurately, your company refuses to make any specific claims, and if you make any but get sued, the company will throw you so far under the bus you would be halfway to China). If ASEA were proven to cure cancer or pimples, you would be encouraged to say that, but it doesn’t, and a box of Cheerios can run rings around the specificity of your claims.

     I’m glad the rules are in place, it protects the consumer and it holds the supplement companies to a high standard.

     No it doesn’t, it means consumers are unprotected and companies are free to slyly imply an efficacy they can’t prove.

     Also, I’m glad we’re keeping you amused, lurkers! If Rome had the internet, it would have needed neither bread nor circuses!

307. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:48 pm

     @ Narad “It’s relevant because this is a classic scam marker. Moreover, it allows the scammer to keep billing in any event in the hope that the mark won’t notice soon enough to contest the charge with their credit-card company.”

     You mean like the agreement that Coca Cola has with a retailer to bring a certain amount of product each week with the price being based on the amount they agree to purchase over time, called a contract? Or the price I agree to pay for my free iPhone if I just agree to be auto-billed for two years?

     People are grown-ups, they can cancel at any time, and the company will honor their request to cancel, or they can send their product back for refund. Are we going to debate the business model now? Personally I’d like to stick to ASEA’s glutathione testing, that’s what got MY attention that I couldn’t de-bunk. Do some googling about the importance of glutathione, it’s captivating stuff. And the testing to measure glutathione and quantify it included Standard Western Blot analysis and Array Design Stressgen Kit. Can you tell me your opinion on the testing that was done to show the effect ASEA has on antioxidant efficiency?

308. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:51 pm

     @ Sialis “BTW, the ads state that one can get a “sample” of ASEA to try. Many people consider being offered a sample of a new product as being a free, no-cost sample, but ASEA charges $30 for a 2 ounce sample.”

     That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

309. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 5:55 pm

     You mean like the agreement that Coca Cola has with a retailer to bring a certain amount of product each week with the price being based on the amount they agree to purchase over time, called a contract?

     No, I mean like the deceptive health-related advertising that permeates AM radio. This isn’t even a coherent response, as you are the “retailer.”

310. # JJ Borgmanon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:01 pm

     I came here as the result of listening to SGU for several years. This particular thread is what got me to register and comment. I have none of the scientific background that many of the posters do, but they are the voices of reason that continuously are born out by facts and other voices of reason. As an aggregate, I feel they sustain the requirement for evidence to support claims that I have adopted for myself.

     This thread has been a delight to read due, in part, to the presence of them and woo enthusiasts who will not take “nonsense!” for an answer.

     Should ASEA be the real deal, I will be a distributor and will hope for numerous subscribers from this site

     Top of my Bucket List: getting to TAM.

311. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:02 pm

     @nybgrus “Nope. You are referring to channels, not receptors. Receptors do pass on chemical messages (though no known cellular membrane receptors exist for transduction of ROS/RS signals), but do not allow materials in or out of the cell.”

     Quoting Dr. Samuelson, “The between-cell (intercellular) messengers are passed back and forth between cells. In order for them to work they must be able to leave one cell and “latch onto” or pass into surrounding cells. There are specific places built into the outer membranes of the cells, called “receptors” and “co-receptors,” where these messengers are allowed to “latch onto” the outside of the cell. Each different type of messenger molecules (called agonists) has its own custom-built latch (receptor) that allows it to pass a signal into the cell. In many cases, the receptor itself, when latched, will cause intracellular messengers to be released to continue carrying the message into the cell. Most cells are stuck together with a scaffolding of adhesive molecules that allow messages to more easily be passed around among neighboring cells. Redox messengers are able to alter the chemistry of the receptor latches that can either enhance or inhibit their ability to latch onto their messengers and pass messages into the cell. Sometimes the presence of these redox messengers themselves will spontaneously trigger a receptor to send messages into the cell.”

312. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:03 pm

     This entry from former minor-leaguer Dan Blewitt, by the way, is quite amusing to me at least.

     I’m pretty tired of people from “teamasea.com” email addresses posting comments to this review.

313. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:05 pm

     ^ My apologies to Mr. Blewett for the misspelling.

314. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:09 pm

     Quoting Dr. Samuelson, “The between-cell (intercellular) messengers… [etc., etc.]”

     Tracy, perhaps if you reread this passage several times, slowly, you will discover that it does not aid in the futile defense of your earlier misunderstanding.

315. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:18 pm

     @ nybgrus “Nope. You are now trying to speak on deco-bio or developmental biology. The cells do not differentiate based on “what they eat” they differentiate based on different signals sent during varying times at development based on gene clusters called homeobox and sonic hedgehog (among other but those are two principle ones). The cells themselves secrete signalling and messaging molecules – none of which are ROS/RS – to differentiate. Otherwise, there would be no way to define a border between, say, the edge of the liver and the start of the peritoneum. External influences can affect this by messing with the signal molecules released by the cells, but doing anything other than screwing up the process is insanely difficult. Which is why it is big news that scientists have, for the first time this year, been able to succesfully de-differentiate cells. We have just now been able to manipulate these devo-bio signals for the first time and we know it is insanely complex and not dependent on ROS/RS signalling.”

     Again quoting, “Once a messenger has delivered its message, it does not “live” very much longer to continue sending more messages. The cells manufacture enzymes (protease “break-down crews”) that quickly disassemble the messengers and recycle their parts (Amino Acids). Thus an adrenaline “burst” lasts only as long as it takes for the protease crews to break down the excess adrenaline in the blood; after which the normal adrenaline balance in the blood is restored. In the body, the phrase, “kill the messenger,” takes on a whole new meaning.

     This process of continuous production and subsequent elimination of molecules is not restricted only to messengers. A careful chemical balance is maintained for hundreds of thousands of types of molecules in every cell that depends on a stable condition where the rate at which the molecules are being produced is the same as the rate that they are taken apart elsewhere. This kinf oa balance is called a homeostatic balance. The secret behind alost all biological processes lies in how the body works to maintain this balance.

     When the homeostatic balance inside any cell is disturbed, there is either a build-up or a depletion of certain types of molecules. This growing unbalanced condition triggers the cell to respond. If there is a deficiency of a certain type of molecule, the cell can respond by increasing production of this molecule. If there is an excess amount of a certain molecules, it can increase the prodeuction of the enzymes that break down this molecules, thus helping to eliminate the excess. The cell can also take a more complex course of action and send out messengers that will help correct a possible problem, or it can even signal for a series of more complex processes that will help the cell adjust to adverse conditions. If the action is successful, the normal balance will be restored and all is well.

     One example of this balancing act is “blood sugar” levels. If the blood sugar level goes up, then the pancreatic beta cells respond by producing more insulin. These insulin messengers speed up the sugar metabolism machinery in the body, causing it to burn some sugar and store the rest as fat. As the blood sugar level decreases, the rate of insulin production also decreases. The elevated amount of insulin in the blood triggers the production of the insulin clean-up crew enzymes. The blood insulin level will eventually go back to normal levels as the excess insulin is broken down and removed by these enzymes.

     It is interesting to note that if too much sugar is placed in the blood all at once, (due to eating easily digestible cabs and sugars), the pancreatic beta cells are stressed to work extra hard and end up producing too much insulin. Since the gross excess of insulin takes a while to clean up, it often happens that too much of the blood sugar is processed and blood sugar levels drop well below normal. This deficiency in blood sugar triggers the production of “hunger” messengers. If this cycle is continued, it may cause obesity and may also lead to over stressing and killing the pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin, causing type II diabetes. The body is not built to handle too much blood sugar all at once.

     The key to health is to make sure the cells have the raw materials they need to maintain a healthy chemical balance in the machinery that keeps them alive. If the cells are healthy, consequently the whole body is in good health. Good health then lies in being able to sustain a healthy chemical balance.”

316. # The Daveon 21 Dec 2012 at 6:33 pm

     “That assumes anyone but the four of us are still reading”

     Been lurking for a while. It’s been highly entertaining, although hard to keep up with how rapidly responses are being posted.

317. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 6:46 pm

     Here are two excerpts from an ASEA YouTube video, which seem to promote ASEA as a fountain of youth. “[..health...] challenges that people have been dealing with for years are now gone. Nothing compares to the joy of feeling truly healthy, of having your cells work like they did when you were young and strong.”

     “Medical professionals are recognizing unprecedented improvements in the health of their patients as they supplement with these newly available molecules.”

     Tracy King on 21 Dec 2012 at 5:51 pm

     @ Sialis “BTW, the ads state that one can get a “sample” of ASEA to try. Many people consider being offered a sample of a new product as being a free, no-cost sample, but ASEA charges $30 for a 2 ounce sample.”

     That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

     Shown below is one of the emails that I received when I inquired about ASEA.

     Time Machine in a Bottle!

     We live and die at the cellular level. Our bodies are programmed for health; programmed to protect, repair, and replace our cells. But our bodies’ ability to do that diminishes over time. We have a word for that: Aging.

     The key to protecting, repairing, and replacing cells is a specialized set of molecules: Redox Signaling molecules. Your own body makes them, every minute of every day. But as we get older, our bodies get less efficient at the process. In fact, while very young children operate at nearly 100% efficiency in what scientists call “the healing response,” a 70 year-old is operating at only 10% efficiency.

     That’s aging, right there. Reduction in efficiency in the healing response.

     The answer? The world’s only Redox Signaling supplement: ASEA.

     Do the math:

     Aging = The body’s decreasing ability to protect, repair, and replace its cells
     Redox Signaling molecules = The key to efficiently protecting, repairing, and replacing cells
     ASEA = The world’s first and only Redox Signaling supplement
     When it comes to aging, Redox Signaling molecules are the key, and ASEA is the answer.

     Watch The Incredible Product Video Here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdi__ZWpuGw&list=PL8CBFB3E112C67171&context=C3fc167fADOEgsToPDskKjKjsjRlXNkT3XZ1S044Mo
     Samples of ASEA!

     We now allow you to buy 1 Bottle of Asea, as a Sample. The cost is only $30. (Shipping Included!) We have priced this BELOW the Retail and Wholesale cost, so you can try the product without the commitment of a full case. Remember, most people feel the benefits after only a few doses, but for some, it may take longer. For this reason, some decide to order another sample…. No Problem. Just let us know.

     100% Results…. This works for ANYONE!

     Every person we’ve introduced to ASEA has noticed an improved difference in the way they feel. The first things people notice are: Improved sleep, better mood, increased mental clarity, And then comes improved energy, little or no fatigue, no soreness after intense workout or heavy exertion, and then, conditions that people have struggled with for decades… begin to fade away. You owe it to yourself to give this a try.

     To order your sample, please call 830-481-3903 or Send an email to the address below.

     Thanks

     Brandon Olson

     http://www.Asea101.com
     AseaRedox101@gmail.com
     664 S Seguin Ave, 78130, new braunfels, TX 78130, USA

     From: “RedoxHealth.net”
     Sender: asearedoxwater@aweber.com
     X-Loop: asearedoxwater@aweber.com
     X-Mailer: AWeber 3.2
     X-Subscription: Subscribed on 09/XX/2012, via web form, by XX.XX.XX.XX from http://redoxhealth.net/
     X_Id: XXXX:1:XXXXXXX
     List-Unsubscribe: ,
     Subject: ASEA Samples – Time (Machine) in a Bottle

     Is that enough? As mentioned previously, the Texas Attorney General likely has more information on Brandon Olson. I suppose you are going to dismiss the $30 sample fee for with some lame excuse, or are you going to implicate Brandon for scamming people (again)?

318. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:17 pm

     Again quoting,

     Not who you were quoting in the first place, of course. Bad form, Tracy.

     “Once a messenger has delivered its message, it does not ‘live’ very much longer to continue sending more messages. The cells manufacture enzymes (protease ‘break-down crews’) that quickly disassemble the messengers and recycle their parts (Amino Acids). Thus an adrenaline “burst” lasts only as long as it takes for the protease crews to break down the excess adrenaline in the blood; after which the normal adrenaline balance in the blood is restored. In the body, the phrase, ‘kill the messenger,’ takes on a whole new meaning.

     In the real world, “the phrase,” “protease ‘break-down crews’” occurs solely at “Healthy Living Light,” featuring the strange ramblings of Anthony Palumbo.

319. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:32 pm

     @ Narad, I was referring to “The Science of Healing Revealed Book” by Dr. Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. Atomic/Medical Physics that was the subject of all the plaigerism comments, you told me to try to be brief, I was trying to save words. Read up a few, the book is to help the lay person and it contained a forward by a former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

     @ all: Sarah has a BS.c in Microbiology (Microbiology, Chemistry, Zoology) so I don’t care if you make fun of my rudimentary understanding of the redox process but she deserves respect.

     @ nybgrus regarding your question about the NMR technology used to measure the reactive molecules in the saline solution called ASEA that is referenced at minute 1 of the video which explains the contents and parameters of the upcoming publishable study… I believe you called it “nonsensical” logic?

     This is a response from Dr. Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Imaging Science, Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY. Does it address your concern at all? If so, can we start talking about the antioxidant efficiency studies now? This is obviously beyond my understanding but I like talking about glutathione and its many benefits! Or even your q’s regarding how the other side of the equation, oxidants, have made a bad name for themselves but how antioxidant cycles require both oxidants and reductants in order to work correctly.

     Dear Tracy,

     Your critic seems to have missed the point that the NMR spectrum shown is labeled as a Phosphorous-31 NMR, and not a hydrogen-1 (H-1) or carbon-13 (C-13) spectrum. Therefore the comments made about H-1 and C-13 spectra by the critic are inappropriate for the spectrum presented. My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

     Joe
     –
     Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D.
     Professor of Chemistry & Imaging Science
     Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program
     Rochester Institute of Technology
     Rochester, NY 14623-5604

320. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:32 pm

     (Anthony Palumbo the chiropractor, that is.)

321. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:38 pm

     Read up a few, the book is to help the lay person and it contained a forward by a former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

     Are you under the impression that anyone here is going to be impressed by an administrative title?

322. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:48 pm

     Quoting an “atomic physicist” explaining intercellular signalling still isn’t proof. Again, the fact that intercellular signalling exists doesn’t mean ASEA effectively alters it (or cures cancer, whitens your teeth, improves performance or cures conjunctivitis; nor does it mean you can trust company representatives to honestly and dispassionately describe the failings of their product). Accurately describing metabolism at a cellular level is not the same thing as being able to positively modulate it with salt water.

     Go away, come back in April, then we’ll talk.

     Sarah has a BS.c in Microbiology (Microbiology, Chemistry, Zoology) so I don’t care if you make fun of my rudimentary understanding of the redox process but she deserves respect.

     Congratulations to Sarah for acquiring a degree. It’s a pity that her learning didn’t include some basic skepticism or ethical principles in business.

     Also, her degree is not proof that ASEA acts as a redox signalling molecule, that it survives digestion, that it improves athletic performance and that it cures all illness.

     This is a response from Dr. Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry and Imaging Science, Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY. Does it address your concern at all? If so, can we start talking about the antioxidant efficiency studies now? This is obviously beyond my understanding but I like talking about glutathione and its many benefits!

     The fact that the NMR spectrum may indicate a molecule is present doesn’t mean that ASEA is an effective medical treatment, that it is a redox signalling molecule, that it influences glutathione in any way, or that it’s an effective antioxidant. Each point stands on its own, much like the below highlighted segment:

     My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

323. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 7:49 pm

     
     

     That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

     @Tracy, My full response is awaiting moderation. Meanwhile, are you implying that ASEA samples are free, no cost to the consumer, and anyone charging money for a sample of ASEA is doing so against company policy?

324. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 7:57 pm

     @ Narad, IF Dr. Samuelson, in fact, did use someone else’s coined phrase of “clean-up crews” (and I’m not going to look up if there’s a monopoly on the use of this phrase that automatically makes someone an idiot if they use it) to explain enzymes, get over it! He didn’t earn the American Association of Physics Teachers award for Teaching Excellence in his work with physics students (awarded on student and faculty recommendations from the University of Utah) for nothing. He is known for making complex science easy to understand.

     And I hardly think that the forward to Dr. Samuelson’s book by Chase N. Peterson, MD, the Former President of the University of Utah and the Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard is a fake title! Look it up and take back your invalid comment. I’M NOT RESPONDING TO ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG AND THAT DR PETERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FAKE TITLE! Let’s at least get SOMETHING resolved here before we go ANY further. I’m tried of letting all these lies and accusations stand and then other people come along, without reading our BOOK of comments, and accept your re-hashes as fact! I have made some very good points and arguments on here and presented evidence that should make anyone realize that ASEA is more than just a “salt water” scheme as Ms. Hall accuses. Where’s the reasonableness here? We don’t have to get into NMR technology to at least acknowledge that this is worthy of further study.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_N._Peterson
     http://medicine.utah.edu/dfpm/AboutUs/faculty/peterson.htm

325. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 8:02 pm

     @Tracy, I’m a mere lay consumer and I even I can see that you have not posted any evidence that ASEA does as it claims. Also, again, are you saying that ASEA “samples” are supposed to be free?

326. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:05 pm

     @ Sialis “are you implying that ASEA samples are free, no cost to the consumer, and anyone charging money for a sample of ASEA is doing so against company policy?”

     Not at all. I’m saying that if anyone is charging $30 for a 2 ounce sample then they are assuming that’s what the market will bear. I can’t imagine anyone taking them up on that offer but if they are then of course no it is not against any kind of company policy. The company DOES crack down on anyone trying to sell it CHEAPER than prices that associates can offer from their replicated websites, such as on an e-bay site. Retailers like internal medicine clinics, health food stores, chiropractors offices, dentist offices, athletic gyms, etc, CAN obtain a cheaper price of $18/bottle if they buy in bulk of 10-cases at a time but then they can’t turn around and sell it on e-bay for a price that undercuts me and the prices established by the company through our “teamASEA” websites (threw that in for Narad’s benefit based on his irrelevant tirade). Anyone can give the product away for free, and I’d venture to say that 100% of ASEA associates DO indeed do that because they want to test the results on other people, and because of their generosity and empathy for those suffering needlessly.

327. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:12 pm

     And I hardly think that the forward to Dr. Samuelson’s book by Chase N. Peterson, MD, the Former President of the University of Utah and the Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard is a fake title! Look it up and take back your invalid comment. I’M NOT RESPONDING TO ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG AND THAT DR PETERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FAKE TITLE! Let’s at least get SOMETHING resolved here before we go ANY further. I’m tried of letting all these lies and accusations stand and then other people come along, without reading our BOOK of comments, and accept your re-hashes as fact! I have made some very good points and arguments on here and presented evidence that should make anyone realize that ASEA is more than just a “salt water” scheme as Ms. Hall accuses. Where’s the reasonableness here? We don’t have to get into NMR technology to at least acknowledge that this is worthy of further study.

     …none of which is peer-reviewed evidence that ASEA is anything but salt water, that it modulates redox signalling, that it affects gluthoionine (don’t care about the spelling), or that you’re justified in selling salt water for $4 per day. Please stop waving Samuelson around as if he were evidence that ASEA works. I suggest you look up another wikipedia page:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

     In some cases an argument from authority is reasonable – but the great thing about authorities is they are very familiar with the evidence base and can easily provide peer-reviewed articles that substantiate their claims. So once again you are making irrelevant points that don’t substantiate your claims.

328. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 8:25 pm

     @ Sialis “are you implying that ASEA samples are free, no cost to the consumer, and anyone charging money for a sample of ASEA is doing so against company policy?”

     Not at all.

     Then why are you making the statement “That’s not ASEA or anything resembling it, just another entrepreneur. Please cite.

     You, Tracy are quite skilled at misleading consumers. My psychic powers are telling me that the Feds will be investigating these amazing health claims being asserted by ASEA. My psychic powers tell me that some of these ASEA marketing people will not be selling ASEA for very long. The sad fact is that they will likely just move on to the next scam. It’s like playing whack-a-mole, as soon as the Feds stop one scam, another one pops up somewhere else.

329. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:31 pm

     @ WLU and Sialis, you are going to need to go the beginning to catch up, you can’t enter mid-stream, sorry. This is a waste of my time to re-hash. Narad had specific questions about some of the slides presented in the NMR discussion contained in the video presented by Dr. David Niemann, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory and VP of the ACSM, please start from the beginning. And Sialis, I have presented plenty of links for you to be able to make conclusions on your own without the need for a published study, all this discussion is about the findings that took the company in the direction of even being able to come up with conclusions worthy of publication.

     And to re-hash AGAIN, ASEA is NOT intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent ANY disease. If Sarah or I have presented ANY information that implies otherwise, we take it back and we are sorry if we mis-led you. The only point we intend to make is that ASEA is the only source of stable balanced reactive redox signaling molecules outside the body in the world besides your own body, and there are benefits to introducing sets of balanced molecules into your body so that cells can sustain a healthy chemical balance which translates into good health for the body as a whole.

     What are Redox Signaling Molecules?
     Redox Signaling is a function that is central to all life on the planet. Redox Signaling molecules are created within every cell of the body, and are vital to the immune system and to cellular healing mechanisms. Redox Signaling molecules are so essential to life that without them, you would die within seconds. A proper supply of Redox Signaling molecules enables the normal cellular healing process: damaged, dysfunctional cells fading away and healthy, vibrant cells taking over.

     What is the importance of Redox Signaling Molecules?
     Redox Signaling molecules are classified into two groups: Reactive Oxygen Species and Reduced Species. The Reactive Oxygen Species arms the immune system, the Reduced Species activates antioxidants. A careful, homeostatic balance between these two species is maintained in all cells and tissues. When a problem or damage occurs, this balance is disturbed, and this imbalance sends a signal to cause the cells and tissues to defend and repair themselves, thus restoring healthy balance. Redox Signaling Molecules boost the efficiency of the body’s internal antioxidants by 500% and supports the vital activity of cellular communication.

     Is ASEA safe?
     Absolutely. In fact, there is almost nothing else as safe for the body as ASEA. It is safer than tap water, spring water, or alkaline water. This record of safety is documented by more than $5 million in safety studies conducted on ASEA and the foundational technology. ASEA has been proven 100% non-toxic on all tissues, organs, and systems of the body.

     HOW IS ASEA ABSORBED?
     ASEA IS ABSORBED QUICKLY THROUGH WATER ABSORPTION CHANNELS IN THE SOFT TISSUES OF THE MOUTH, ESOPHAGUS, AND STOMACH LINING. THE RS AND ROS MOLECULES IN ASEA ARE ABLE TO SURVIVE THE HARSH ACIDIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE STOMACH UNTIL THEY ARE ABSORBED. TRACES OF RESIDUAL RS AND ROS MOLECULES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE BLOOD HOURS AFTER INGESTION.

     I hope this helps you better understand Sialis, I realize you all are used to being able to de-bunk anything but, try as you might, you have presented NO evidence that ASEA Corporate is presenting any false or misleading information. They have a product that is heavily backed by research and supported by clinical as well as anecdotal results, you can either buy it or not. But calling a rose by any other name is still a rose.

     “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi

330. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 8:37 pm

     NO evidence that ASEA Corporate is presenting any false or misleading information. They have a product that is heavily backed by research and supported by clinical as well as anecdotal results, you can either buy it or not. But calling a rose by any other name is still a rose.

     Amazing! And I hear that the jail system only houses innocent people.

331. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:43 pm

     Narad had specific questions about some of the slides presented in the NMR discussion contained in the video presented by Dr. David Niemann, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory and VP of the ACSM, please start from the beginning.

     No, I did not. Please try to at least keep people straight before further issuing decrees about who gets to say what about whom.

332. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 8:52 pm

     Furthermore, I fail to understand how spraying salt water into one’s eyes would be considered “safe”. What about people with Sjogren’s or Sarcoidosis, or diabetes and other diseases which can cause people to have extremely dry and sensitive eyes?

333. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:53 pm

     He didn’t earn the American Association of Physics Teachers award for Teaching Excellence in his work with physics students (awarded on student and faculty recommendations from the University of Utah) for nothing.

     As has already been pointed out, this is not a noteworthy credential and does not meaningfully involve the AAPT.

334. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 8:55 pm

     WLU and Sialis, you are going to need to go the beginning to catch up, you can’t enter mid-stream, sorry.

     Oh, are we inventing rules now? Anyway, I was aware of the criticisms of the NMR “evidence” presented above, I just lack the technical background to address specifics. Now, it may very well be that the response you got indicates the particular atomic bonds exist, but again as I have said before – this doesn’t mean your magic salt water has any medical effects. So no need to repeat anything, since you haven’t addressed any of the flaws found in your previous arguments.

     This is a waste of my time to re-hash. Narad had specific questions about some of the slides presented in the NMR discussion contained in the video presented by Dr. David Niemann, Director of the Human Performance Laboratory and VP of the ACSM, please start from the beginning.

     I thought we weren’t re-hashing?

     And Sialis, I have presented plenty of links for you to be able to make conclusions on your own without the need for a published study, all this discussion is about the findings that took the company in the direction of even being able to come up with conclusions worthy of publication.

     Yeah…the majority of criticisms against you have been your complete failure to provide any publications that support your claims. Lots of company propaganda, nothing relevant from peer reviewed press.

     And summarizing again – blah blah blah more explanations of real phenomena lacking any proof ASEA affects them blah blah blah safety isn’t efficacy blah blah blah irrelevant crap ignoring the fact that ASEA deliberately doesn’t make specific claims because it means they don’t face action from the FTC or FDA.

     This is new, a quote from Ghandi. Now, he was talking about political processes, not empirical evidence, so finally something relevant! You have successfully contextualized your claims as non-empirical. Good job! Does absolutely nothing to demonstrate ASEA is effective, but at least you’re in the right ballpark. Here’s another couple quotes for you:

     Carl Sagan – “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

     Robert L. Park – “It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.”

     See, these address empirical claims, which you keep trying, but failing to make. Wanna take another swing there slugger?

335. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 8:59 pm

     Some patients have medical conditions which require that only sterile solutions be used in their eyes, ASEA leads consumers to believe the ASEA is safe for everyone to use, including in their eyes. Is ASEA sterile? How do you maintain that sterility after the bottle has been opened? That’s ok, don’t bother answering because you can’t. ASEA being sprayed into the eyes of certain patients could indeed cause medical problems. Your complete lack of ethics astounds me.

336. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 9:08 pm

     And should there be any doubt, ASEA is the single greatest health science breakthrough of our lifetime, the key to living younger longer.

     I love Einstein quotes don’t you all? We should take a break from arguing…

     The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

     Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

     Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.

     Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… it takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

     Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value.

     Peace cannot be achieved by force, it can only be achieved by understanding.

     I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.

     Look deep into nature and then you will understand everything better.

     Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.

     Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.

     Concern for man and fate must always form the chief interest of his endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.

     The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

     It is a miracle that curiosity survives a formal education.

     Most people say that it is intellect that makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

     It should be possible to explain the law of physics to a barmaid.

     Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to anyone.

     We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.

     AND MY FAVORITE FROM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
     “Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.”

337. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 21 Dec 2012 at 9:14 pm

     And should there be any doubt, ASEA is the single greatest health science breakthrough of our lifetime, the key to living younger longer.[citation needed]

     Fixed it for you champ. Also, you are a rooster.

     AND MY FAVORITE FROM BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
     “Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.”

     Ha, are you fucking kidding? Your company isn’t investigating anything! I’d like to investigate using good-quality sources, but you haven’t provided any!

     Man, you just keep missing the boat, don’t you?

338. # TracyKingon 21 Dec 2012 at 9:28 pm

     I publicly apologize to Narad even though I’m not speaking to him UNTIL he admits that Chase N. Peterson, MD, who wrote the forward to Dr. Gary Samuelson’s book, “The Science of Healing Revealed” has a real title of “Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

     It was NOT Narad who posed the NMR question, it was nybgrus, who has yet to respond to the Ph.D.’s comment that should have cleared up his concern that all the information presented in the metabolites video was a sham and complete bogus.

     by nybgrus: “The NMR spectroscopy data in the video don’t make sense. Gears can help me out here if he is so inclined, but from what I recall from my undergrad synthetic chem days and a quick refresher thanks to Professor Google, the values listed indicate that he is doing C13 spectroscopy since H1 spectroscopy only goes up to about 12ppm shift and the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish. Furthermore, the two peaks he notes are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift. Using this handy dandy table we find that corrsesponds to R3C and R2C2.” And then it went on for several pages about what a sham it was… blah, blah, blah…

     Dear Tracy,

     Your critic seems to have missed the point that the NMR spectrum shown is labeled as a Phosphorous-31 NMR, and not a hydrogen-1 (H-1) or carbon-13 (C-13) spectrum. Therefore the comments made about H-1 and C-13 spectra by the critic are inappropriate for the spectrum presented. My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

     Joe
     –
     Joseph P. Hornak, Ph.D.
     Professor of Chemistry & Imaging Science
     Graduate Director, MS Chemistry Program
     Rochester Institute of Technology
     Rochester, NY 14623-5604

339. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 9:40 pm

     I publicly apologize to Narad even though I’m not speaking to him UNTIL he admits that Chase N. Peterson, MD, who wrote the forward to Dr. Gary Samuelson’s book, “The Science of Healing Revealed” has a real title of “Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

     I didn’t dispute this in the first place. I stated that it wasn’t impressive. Again, it’s administrative. And nobody “has” a “title” that begins with “former.”

340. # Naradon 21 Dec 2012 at 9:43 pm

     I love Einstein quotes don’t you all?

     No, not really, particularly given that it involves a sourcing task that you don’t merit.

341. # weingon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:12 pm

     @Tracy,

     “And Sialis, I have presented plenty of links for you to be able to make conclusions on your own without the need for a published study”

     I have actually made my own conclusions based on what you linked. But I am afraid you won’t like them. You have nothing. You only have unsupported claims. The links are totally irrelevant to the claims. Anyone who thinks you have anything else, has to be a blubbering idiot.

342. # Chrison 21 Dec 2012 at 10:18 pm

     Personally, I am not a big fan of links. I usually ask for the title, journal and date of the PubMed indexed studies that support a claim.

343. # weingon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:50 pm

     “Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance.”
     It’s right up there with clearing and accepting under the same circumstances. So is thinking that you know how to investigate.

344. # weingon 21 Dec 2012 at 10:53 pm

     “The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
     When did you stop questioning what you were told by the promoters of ASEA?

345. # The Daveon 21 Dec 2012 at 11:24 pm

     “And I hardly think that the forward to Dr. Samuelson’s book by Chase N. Peterson, MD, the Former President of the University of Utah and the Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard is a fake title! Look it up and take back your invalid comment. I’M NOT RESPONDING TO ANY MORE OF YOUR POSTS UNTIL YOU AT LEAST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG AND THAT DR PETERSON DOES NOT HAVE A FAKE TITLE! Let’s at least get SOMETHING resolved here before we go ANY further. I’m tried of letting all these lies and accusations stand and then other people come along, without reading our BOOK of comments, and accept your re-hashes as fact! I have made some very good points and arguments on here and presented evidence that should make anyone realize that ASEA is more than just a “salt water” scheme as Ms. Hall accuses. Where’s the reasonableness here? We don’t have to get into NMR technology to at least acknowledge that this is worthy of further study. ”

     A few observations:
     1. you sound like a 3rd grader that was told “my father is better than yours” and your response is “nuh uh! Tae it back!” Shows a great deal of immaturity.
     2. Nobody said it was a fake title. We just said aministrative titles mean nothing to the conversation about whether or not ASEA works.
     3. If you’re going to get all butt-hurt over titles, show some respect and address her as Dr. Hall. Not Harriett or Ms. Hall. She earned her MD, and is still license an praticing, which is more than can be sai about your CPA, if I remember right from upthread.

346. # Sialison 21 Dec 2012 at 11:47 pm

     All other claims aside, ASEA Corporate states that:

     “ASEA is safe to all tissues, organs, and systems of the body. ”

     “ASEA is safe and soothing to even the most sensitive tissues.”

     “Apply to cuts, sores, open wounds, burns, abrasions, scars, acne, wrinkles and any other skin issue. ASEA is safe to apply to open cuts, sores and wounds and does not sting or irritate.”

     “ASEA can be applied safely to the eyes by using the personal applicator (spraying) or with an eye dropper. “ASEA has a soothing affect on the eyes and can be used to promote cellular healing and correction of many issues. Dryness, inflammation, soreness and vision issues are typical reasons for applying ASEA to your eyes.”

     The only usage missing is as a douche or enema, unless I am overlooking the mention. It seems to me that any product being sold for optical, nasal and similar usage must be manufactured under strict laboratory conditions so as to ensure no product contamination occurs. Furthermore, the product must be packaged so as to remain contaminant free throughout the entire use of the package.

     How does ASEA ensure that its product remains free from contaminants when the product is packaged in a multi-use container?

     Inhaling ASEA using a nebulizier would also pose risk to patients, especially those immune-compromised. Is ASEA safe for patients with asthma, pneumonia, pulmonary sarcoidosis, or COPD to inhale in a nebulizer? Again, after the container has been opened and used, how does ASEA guarantee it’s safety and sterility as is often needed for such patients?

     What procedures are in place at the ASEA manufacturing plant to ensure that the product is sterile and safe for nebulizer usage? What materials are used in the making of the ASEA packaging and the personal applicator? Do they degrade over time? Could such degradation contaminate or otherwise effect the safety of the product when used as recommended in the eyes, nose and as a nebulizer for the lungs?

     All of the above questions, and yet ASEA Corporate states those internal uses are safe. How is this possible? Yet ASEA does in fact post a Safety Warning: The stability of ASEA is sensitive to contamination. Always cap unused portions, and do not drink directly from the bottle, as this will encourage contamination.

     It seems to me that if ASEA is going to market a product for use on “all tissues”, they at least need to find a way to package it so that it is not so “sensitive to contamination”.

     ———-

     Cardiovascular, Pulmonary and Residual Toxic Effects on Dogs Exposed Nasally to the Product (File: TS21,TS32)
     Investigator MPI Research, Mattawan, Michigan
     ASEA Corporate’s Nebulized product vapor does not cause irritation to the soft tissues of the nose, mouth, throat, eyes or lungs in dogs over long-term exposures. No abnormal macroscopic or microscopic damage, blood or urine markers, blood gas findings, are observed.

347. # nybgruson 22 Dec 2012 at 12:30 am

     I just skimmed through all of this, but one thing caught my eye. The disingenuous misrepresentation of our statements by only cherry picking my first comment and continuing on as if nothing further had been said.

     It was NOT Narad who posed the NMR question, it was nybgrus, who has yet to respond to the Ph.D.’s comment that should have cleared up his concern that all the information presented in the metabolites video was a sham and complete bogus.

     by nybgrus: “The NMR spectroscopy data in the video don’t make sense. Gears can help me out here if he is so inclined, but from what I recall from my undergrad synthetic chem days and a quick refresher thanks to Professor Google, the values listed indicate that he is doing C13 spectroscopy since H1 spectroscopy only goes up to about 12ppm shift and the chart Neiman presents starts at 14ish and goes to 26ish. Furthermore, the two peaks he notes are at ~24 and ~17ppm shift. Using this handy dandy table we find that corrsesponds to R3C and R2C2.” And then it went on for several pages about what a sham it was… blah, blah, blah…

     Dear Tracy,

     Your critic seems to have missed the point that the NMR spectrum shown is labeled as a Phosphorous-31 NMR, and not a hydrogen-1 (H-1) or carbon-13 (C-13) spectrum. Therefore the comments made about H-1 and C-13 spectra by the critic are inappropriate for the spectrum presented. My comments are not intended as a validation of the presented results, but only to indicate that the critic’s comments do not apply to the NMR which is presented.

     Hmm:

     “12/19/12 at 10:11 AMnybgrus
     The NMR spectroscopy data in the video don’t make sense. Gears can help me out here if he is so inclined, but from what I recall from my undergrad synthetic chem days and a quick refresher thanks to Professor Google…”

     “12/19/12 at 11:17 AMgears
     Regarding the NMR spectrum, the caption says that it is a phosphorus NMR. This should mean that it is looking at the environment of phosphorus nuclei in the solution. That isn’t unreasonable per se, as phosphorus is biologically relevant, but I can’t understand how that spectrum should lead them to conclude that superoxide is present (phosphorus NMR can detect phosphorus bonded to . The spectrum is meaningless to me (as a point of reference, I use NMR basically every day).”

     “12/19/12 at 12:55 PMgears
     Anyhow, you were totally on the mark that the spectrum was worthless, which is why I tried to impress upon my pre-med students that organic chemistry literacy was important, even if you don’t actually use it every day.”

     “Yesterday at 12:49 PMTracyKing
     nybgrus and gears, can you please tell me if this helps answer your question at all? If not, what else do you need? And can you be as specific and brief as possible please? Thanks for your help!

     My Ph.D. research was on NMR of hyperolarized polycrytaline Xe129. I know the theory intimately and have even built NMR spectrometers, but do not have time to elucidate right now. The spectra shown is from P31 NMR in the DIPPMPO molecule, targeting the phosphate. The peaks represent the chemical shifts due to the attachment of two known adducts OH* and OOH* to DIPPMPO. These adducts are formed in the presence of superoxides. The peaks represent definitive evidence of the existence of stable superoxides in the product. The complexes that hold the superoxides stable are part of the redox signaling molecules in ASEA.
     -Gary”

     “Yesterday at 4:00 PMnybgrus
     For me it doesn’t help at all. Perhaps Gears can comment if it does. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since it was just now that my comment came out of moderation but the crux is that the ROS/RS species purported to exist in the literature you have provided are not the same as the ones the NMR spectra appears to show”

348. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 12:55 am

     So, just to establish some parameters, pretty much this is a bogus product/company because:
     1) they don’t yet have a published article
     a) in PubMed exclusively (no other journal will suffice)
     b) that contains hundreds of studies
     c) to support a claim about a specific DISEASE
     d) that is on humans, NOT mice
     2) it uses MLM as its worldwide distribution method
     3) the company’s claims are unproven even though they are the strongest claims ANY supplement can make regarding its product, and
     4) the company’s claims are vague because they say that it can help maintain proper balance inside the body to support the immune system and healing process.
     5) it’s made using the raw materials of salt and water as its starting ingredients
     6) the patents only protect the PROCESS whereby the salt and water molecules are dismantled and put back together in a different molecular formation that creates a saline solution of balanced sets of reducant and oxidant molecules (8 of each) that are reactive but stable (so they do not neutralize themselves). Patents should relate to disease processes or they are of no value.
     7) being the first to market with a patented product that has no competition and is proven to be safe doesn’t provide enough incentive for people to get involved
     8) it attracts gullible people who are just out to make a fast buck by duping people with unstoppable autoships

     And absolutely not one person on here can determine the value and crediblity of this product based on one or more of these discussion points which are unworthy of exploration
     1) an understanding of the emerging science of redox signaling which includes volumes of research from independent scientists around the world who confirm the vital nature of Redox Signaling to cell health as evidenced by the 100′s of research studies, published articles, and textbooks being generated about Redox Signaling monthly, making it one of the fastest growing research fields in science
     2) the fact that we have 11 safety studies by universities and independent labs
     3) the fact that we have independent verification of molecules in our solution through
     a) standard fluorescent indicators, namely RPE, APF, and HPF, measured with a Nanodrop 3300 fluorospectrometer which measures the intensity of the spectrum of light emitted from the indicators
     b) NMR technology by independent researchers unaffiliated with ASEA
     4) antioxidant efficiency studies using BOTH Western Blot Analysis AND Array Design Stressgen Kit (plus white papers)
     5) Vo2Max and ventilatory threshhold uncontrolled testing which led to a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover randomized clinical trial that tested metabolite profiles of athletes that was performed by the independent Human Performance Laboratory and overseen by the VP of the ACSM and other completely independent Ph.D.’s (plus white papers)
     6) the integrity of the founders including Verdis Norton, former VP of Strategy for Kraft Foods, and Jim Pack, who retired in his 40′s from the telecommunications industry and whose son is a former Silver Medal US Olympian, (no prior experience with MLM’s, good reputations as respectable business men in their fields)
     7) the value of the research and press releases available on-line when it was under the umbrella of a biotech company called MDI-P, for which all of the safety studies were conducted
     8) the fact that the drug approval process with the FDA
     a) costs $100′s of millions of privately funded investment
     b) takes an average of 12 years
     c) is high risk because of competition, and the uncertainness of the expected research results
     d) can only specify that a drug be used for one indication even if the drug is determined to be useful for many others (without going back through phase 1, 2 and 3 phases for the 2nd indication)
     e) requires an LD-50 for which a product “native” to the body can not obtain (any unmatched electrons are just flushed like water so there is no risk of over-use or mis-dosing which is why it’s so safe)

     And I am PERSONALLY
     1) a fraud
     2) deceptive
     3) an idiot
     4) unethical
     5) uneducated
     6) a liar
     7) an opportunist
     8) preying on people’s illnesses and health challenges for my own financial benefit
     9) incapable of understanding how I’ve been mind controlled
     10) unaware that groupthink concepts are a powerful motivator for not being able to see another side of things
     All because I dared to suggest to such an accomplished group of Ph.D.’s the possibility of using any other type of analysis BESIDES a published study since FOR NOW we don’t have that YET; what we DO have, however, is a company-sponsored video promising that we WILL in fact have a publishable study, it just hasn’t offically been announced which journal or when (so as not to jeopardize its release), BUT the company HAS publicly acknowledged that we are in the process of obtaining it, we are pursuing it (and this is the part that makes the least sense to me in all of your arguments… if they DON’T produce it now that they’ve said they’re going to, then isn’t the company only going to be viable up until they have to admit that they don’t have it — so they are going to get in 4 more “good” months of profits and orders before it crashes — and all of you everybody thinks that makes sense despite evidence that they have recently invested in international expansion, and building an infrastructure that supports a long-term “legacy” company including recent investments in technology, training, marketing materials, website design, and multi-country platforms for ordering and pay plans). Wow that seems like a lot of trouble to make a “quick” buck that took 20 years in the making!

     Is anyone interested in continuing this discussion based on my MISunderstanding of any of these parameters set forth by this group of heady braniacs, for whom I am unworthy to go head-to-head with? Because I would LOVE to continue the discussion on any one or more of these points as long as we can be reasonable and refrain from personal attacks.

349. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:21 am

     ha ha HARRIETT… the funny faces aren’t mine obviously. couldn’t you have kept the indentions to make it easier to read?

     @ nybgrus, can you help clarify for me your unresolved NMR question? Are you saying that you don’t think the ROS/RS species presented in the chart at the one-two minute mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g are the same as the ones presented in the NMR spectra of the same chart? Are we talking about one chart showing two pieces of conflicting information? I’m sorry, I’m sure that’s not right but I can’t understand your question unless it’s phrased in a more understandable way for stupid ol’ me.

350. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:30 am

     And I am PERSONALLY

     While parts of your numbered list stand, I think the underlying suggestion is that you quite simply didn’t know what you were getting into when voyaging here, and I say this as an infrequent commenter (for the reason that I am generally outclassed), on some sort of expedition in search of self-validation.

351. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:38 am

     ha ha HARRIETT… the funny faces aren’t mine obviousl

     Um, if you’re referring to the emoticons, which I haven’t noticed Dr. Hall making fun of, the irksome one is automatically and unfortunately generated by WordPress when it sees “8).” You can type “8&#” if you wish.

352. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:42 am

     Allow me to try that again. …Can type “8&##41;”

353. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:44 am

     Dagnabit. Just put ampersand-octothorpe-41-semicolon after the ’8′ and it’s fine.

354. # nybgruson 22 Dec 2012 at 2:20 am

     Curioser and curioser. Anybody else notice the numbering of the points? Look at it closely.

     nybgrus, can you help clarify for me your unresolved NMR question? Are you saying that you don’t think the ROS/RS species presented in the chart at the one-two minute mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9CX4y996g are the same as the ones presented in the NMR spectra of the same chart? Are we talking about one chart showing two pieces of conflicting information? I’m sorry, I’m sure that’s not right but I can’t understand your question unless it’s phrased in a more understandable way for stupid ol’ me.

     The NMR spectra shown in the video does not identify ROS/RS and it does not correspond to the compounds that are supposedly in ASEA based on the literature you have provided.

     In other words, the NMR specrtagraph cannot be showing what the video is telling us it is showing.

     It would be like me showing you this and telling you it demonstrates that whales are endangered. The claim does not follow from the data.

355. # nybgruson 22 Dec 2012 at 2:21 am

     Just realized, I should be clear that I am not speaking about the accidental emoticons. Something much more interesting, IMO

356. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 3:12 am

     @ nybgrus, you mean the numbering turning into lettering? i wrote it so that the letters would be indented but wordpress just put them under each other so now it’s harder to read.

     do you mean the 2nd chart that shows an EPR spectrum? Here is some information that might clear it up:
     Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) or electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy is a technique for studying materials with unpaired electrons. The basic concepts of EPR are analogous to those of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), but it is electron spins that are excited instead of the spins of atomic nuclei. Because most stable molecules have all their electrons paired, the EPR technique is less widely used than NMR. However, this limitation also means that EPR offers great specificity, since ordinary chemical solvents and matrices do not give rise to EPR spectra.

357. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 3:19 am

     5-Diisopropoxyphosphoryl-5-methyl-1-pyrroline-N-oxide (DIPPMPO) spin trapping has been used in measuring superoxide production in mitochondria.

358. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 3:20 am

     It is worth noting that the radical adduct (or products such as the hydroxylamine) can often be stable enough to allow non-EPR detection techniques. The groups of London, and Berliner & Khrahmtsov have used NMR to study such adducts and Timmins and co-workers used charge changes upon DBNBS trapping to isolate protein adducts for study. A major advance has been the development of anti-DMPO antibodies by Mason’s group, allowing study of spin trapping reactions by a simple immuno-based techniques.

359. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 3:52 am

     It is worth noting that the radical adduct (or products such as the hydroxylamine) can often be stable enough to allow non-EPR detection techniques. The groups of London, and Berliner & Khrahmtsov have used NMR to study such adducts and Timmins and co-workers used charge changes upon DBNBS trapping to isolate protein adducts for study. A major advance has been the development of anti-DMPO antibodies by Mason’s group, allowing study of spin trapping reactions by a simple immuno-based techniques.

     Tracy, you’re now grabbing stuff from Wikipedia for no discernible reason and failing to mention that you didn’t make it up yourself. Give it a rest.

360. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:07 am

     Or, to put it another way, explain the anomalous Zeeman effect in your own words.

361. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:36 am

     Ok, now you get to see why I’m on the business side and not the development side, bear with me… so do you mean that the equipment is just showing a high concentration of only superoxides and not a balanced set of reductants and oxidants like other ASEA literature purports? If so, then I think that the NMR technology is just being utilized to identify the presence of ANY redox signaling molecules, which is all that was necessary for them to proceed with their study (they had to confirm that the solution did in fact contain reactive molecules that create signaling in the body, of which superoxides are included). Since superoxides are only produced as a by-product of the energy-making process of mitochondrial respiration, then the requirement that the ASEA solution contains something only made by the body could be satisfied. (???) ASEA literature DOES state that the solution contains BOTH reductants and oxidants, however it appears that this NMR technology is only SHOWING the oxidants, however, perhaps there is other equipment they would use to measure the reductants and for the sake of satisfying the reactive molecules verification, showing both sides was not necessary (that doesn’t mean the solution lacks reductants, just that they weren’t measured with NMR). (???)

     OK so is your next question then, “well if you can’t prove there are also reductants in the solution to balance out the superoxides, then is it safe” (answer yes, see safety studies done on mice and animals); “and why would you want to put superoxides in your body AT ALL, aren’t those ‘free radicals’ which are biologically toxic?”

     Now I’ll get Dr. Samuelson’s help with that question (from his book): “Oxidants have made a really bad name for themselves; several of them are free radicals that have high-energy, unpaired electrons that will tear apart whatever they come into contact with (like tiny molecular cannons). Oxidants will damage DNA, tear holes in cellular membranes, destroy important proteins, etc. The reductants are also hazardous, they will fire electorons into molecules (with the ferocity of small cannons), theerby causing destruction. To be perfectly clear, reductants are not antioxidants. Reductants are simply the chemical counterparts of oxidants (much like acids and bases). Antioxidants, on teh other hand are a class of much larger organic molecules produced by genetic coding that act as catalysts capable of facilitating the revers chemical processes needed to ultimately “untie” and neutralize both the oxidants and the reductants. Antioxidant cycles require both oxidants AND reductants in order to work correctly.

     Let us focus on the antioxidants for a minute. The antioxidants were historically considered as the heroes of the cell because they break down the harmful oxidants and reductants by pulling them in and neutralizing them, leaving just common harmless molecules in their wake. Over an antioxidant cycle (some of which are complex multi-step processes) the oxidants and reductants are neutralized, however the antioxidant itself remains unchanged, ready to do it all over again to the next set of oxidants and reductants. The antioxidant in this sense is a catalyst that speeds up the neutralization of oxidants and reductants and yet of itself remains unchanged. You can think of an antioxidant as a black box: reactive and potentially dangerous oxidants and reductants go into the box and harmless neutral sea-water molecules come out.

     Ironically, the oxidants (that historically have been thought to be the villains) are now seen as central players to the healthy function of the cells. We have recently learned that we would not be able to live without either the reactive oxidants or the reductants. Truth be told, these tiny reactive molecules play an absolutely essential messenger role in our cells and tissues. The most critical aspect of healthy redox-messenger balance is in that the oxidants and reductants must be produced and eliminated in perfectly-balanced and equal portions. As long as there are equal portions of oxidants and reductants in the interior and exterior of the cell, the antioxidants can readily neutralize them both as fast as they are created. As discussed, the antioxidants need equal portions of oxidants and reductants in order to function.

     In the case of Glutathione (an abundant antioxidant made in our cells), the large mouth of the relatively huge antioxidant molecule lures in a reductant and then lures in an oxidant and then pulls them both together into the “active site” in the middle. At the active site, the reductant and oxidant are combined together, neutralizing them both. The resulting harmless molecules float away. The antioxidant is then free to do it all again. If there is an ample supply of reductants and oxidants in the neighborhood, one antioxidant molecule can typically neutralize tens of millions of oxidant molecules every second, as measured in the lab.

     The antioxidants are purposefully manufactured, sent to and positioned around the areas of the cell, such as the nucleus, that are vulnerable to oxidative damage. As equal portions of oxidants and reductants approach these protected areas, the antioxidants standing guard around these areas pull them in and neutralize them both. The antioxidants are thus able to keep these potentially harmful reactive moleucles away from protected areas and corral and use them for their own best purposes. Consequently, the immune system uses large amounts of such oxidants, along with strong demolition enzymes, as its weapon of choice against harmful invading bacteria and viruses. The foreign invaders do not even stand a chance against these potent weapons. After the invaders have been torn apart and destroyed by the enzymes and oxidants, the surrounding antioxidants standing guard and other enzymes clean up the mess, toxin and hazards.

     The key to understanding how this redox balancing process helps the body heal itself comes when considering what happens wetn the cells become damaged or defective for some reason or another. There are thousands of different proteins and molecules placed everywhere inside the cell. When something is not working right, how does the cell detect the damage? The answer lies in the fact that as the normal homeostatic balance that exists in healthy cells is disturbed, somewhere in the cell there is either a build-up or deficiency of the normal quantity of molecules. There is a high probability that this growing imbalance will at some point make the metabolism of sugars less efficient. When this happnes, the redox-messenger production in the mitochondria becomes unbalanced, producing many more oxidants than reductants or vice versa. In other words, the damage will ultimately manifest itself as a build-up of oxidants or reductants. This condition is called “oxidative stress” and is a real phenomenon seen (under the microscope) to occur in almost all defective or stressed cells (in both animals and plants).

     An imbalance in the redox messengers, usually manifesting itself as oxidative stress, sends a clear signal that damage has occurred somewhere and that the cell is defective. The excess oxidants are not balanced by reductants and cannot be effectively neutralized by antioxidants. These oxidants end up causing even more damage to other parts of the cell. This clear signal for help causes the DNA to code for the “fix-it crew” and cytokine messengers are sent out to alert the immune system. If this imbalance (oxidative stress condition) is not corrected by the attempts of the fix-it crew, the oxidants continue to build up. Then after about two hours, the fatally damaged cell starts a “programmed cell suicide” cascade (apoptosis) that will end up with the cell killing and dismantling itself. This is not a bad thing. Normal healthy neighboring cells will then be able to divide in order to fill in the vacancy. On the microscopic scale, this is essentially the healing process.

     The oxidative stress condition in a stressed or damaged cell also causes the DNA to code for messengers to be sent to neighboring cells, advising them of its condition. Redox messengers can also be used as these intercellular messengers. If the damaged cell, such as those found in tumors, is not able to kill itself, then its neighboring healthy cells will send back “death domain” messengers as well as distress messengers to the immune system that will either cause the damaged cell to die or to be attacked by the immune system. This system is regularly used to detect and destroy practically all of the damaged and dysfunctional cells in the body. Remember, it only takes one undetected dysfunctional cell, out of the trillions that are successfully detected and killed, to start seeding an abnormal growth.”

362. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:41 am

     @ Narad, of course I copied and pasted that! I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, I figured you could tell how it was written that it wasn’t me… I was just trying to help you answer your own question so I pasted things that seemed relevant in the hopes that it would mean something to you? Because yes it meant NOTHING to me. And I was busy writing so I didn’t see your comments about it until now. Sorry if you feel like this is wasting your time. You still think I’m a con artist and I’m not, I promise you, I have 3 kids, ages 15, 13 and 8, I’ve been married to the same man for 23 years and we’ve been together since we were 13 and 14 years old! I’m just loyal, passionate, curious, and I truly want to make a difference int e

363. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:41 am

     @ Narad, of course I copied and pasted that! I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, I figured you could tell how it was written that it wasn’t me… I was just trying to help you answer your own question so I pasted things that seemed relevant in the hopes that it would mean something to you? Because yes it meant NOTHING to me. And I was busy writing so I didn’t see your comments about it until now. Sorry if you feel like this is wasting your time. You still think I’m a con artist and I’m not, I promise you, I have 3 kids, ages 15, 13 and 8, I’ve been married to the same man for 23 years and we’ve been together since we were 13 and 14 years old! I’m just loyal, passionate, curious, and I truly want to make a difference int e

364. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:44 am

     oops… in the world and to live a life that matters. Money is not that important to me as long as we have our basic needs, I’m really pretty much of a minimalist. Please just have a conversation with me, snide comments aside. Give me the benefit of the doubt until we at least get through the crux of your dilemma regarding those slides presented. If they’re wrong, I want to know it.

365. # weingon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:49 am

     “And I am PERSONALLY
     1) a fraud
     2) deceptive
     3) an idiot
     4) unethical
     5) uneducated
     6) a liar
     7) an opportunist
     preying on people’s illnesses and health challenges for my own financial benefit
     9) incapable of understanding how I’ve been mind controlled
     10) unaware that groupthink concepts are a powerful motivator for not being able to see another side of things”

     Well, you finally got something right, but I doubt that you actually believe it. You want us to accept the claims of some company sponsored video, just like you have, and call it knowledge.

     I prefer Shakespeare, ” it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

366. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:52 am

     regarding the Zeeman effect, are you talking about the 1st chart “ASEA Composition” or the 2nd chart “EPR Spectrum” — (sorry!)

367. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 5:05 am

     @ weing, don’t “ACCEPT” it, prove it WRONG (that’s what I tried to do)! And without needing someone else to do a stupid study FOR you! We don’t have that yet so we are left to use our decipherin’ skills. When I got involved, we didn’t even have the promise of ANY studies on the horizon so I had to either accept it or de-bunk it if I wanted to take action NOW and not wait until it took off without me… and regret seeing myself saying “well damn, I wish I’d seen that potential, I’d be a millionaire right now!” [And not because money is my motivation but because money buys freedom and the power to help other people in more significant ways.] I know that’s all way to “woo” (as JJ would say) to all of you right brain thinkers but that really is me and I don’t apologize for it. And weing, like I’ve said, I tried to understand it myself and I sought advice from people who are FAR smarter than me who could not de-bunk it either and who actually became involved because they TOO got intrigued by the research which seemed plausible and valid in the absence of any information to the contrary. And then I saw the incredible results people were having with the product… I mean what was I to do, really?! Keep selling kitchen tools at home parties or sit in a desk cranking numbers all day? This is the chance to be part of something that could literally change the world IF IT’S TRUE. So HELP me, don’t make fun of me.

368. # weingon 22 Dec 2012 at 5:17 am

     “This is the chance to be part of something that could literally change the world IF IT’S TRUE. So HELP me, don’t make fun of me.”

     OK. The burden is on them to prove it right not on anyone else to prove it wrong. Their claims are not true, so save your time and money.

369. # TracyKingon 22 Dec 2012 at 5:29 am

     One last comment and then I have GOT to go to bed! Do you not see that if you wait until it’s self-evident, then the financial opportunity will have long passed? I mean all of you want me to wait until they have a published study on HUMANS in PUBMED about a DISEASE PROCESS… blah, blah, blah. I mean come on, at some point, can’t you just look at a body of evidence as a WHOLE, all the pieces that make up the parts, and come to a logical conclusion BEFORE it hits Dr. Oz stage because by THAT time, everybody will already know about, will already know someone to get it from… I mean you all keep saying I’m buying everything the company is selling without having a brain to think for myself and I’m being duped by my blindness because I’m already in, but I see it as YES they don’t have everything but they have ENOUGH. Entrepreneurs have succeeded with a lot less to go on.

370. # nybgruson 22 Dec 2012 at 6:51 am

     pubmed is not a journal.

     and no, the spectra was clearly an NMR not and EPR and it said specifically it was looking at phosphorus. I didn’t catch it at first and thought it was looking at carbon. Then gears caught it and it was confirmed by (supposedly) Samuelson himself that it was a phosphorus NMR – “spectra shown is from P31 NMR in the DIPPMPO molecule, targeting the phosphate”

     The claim is that “The peaks represent the chemical shifts due to the attachment of two known adducts OH* and OOH* to DIPPMPO”

     But then what is the point of the phosphorus? The point of DIPPMPO is to act as a spin trap to stabilize free radicals in an adduct. But if ASEA is already “balanced and stable” why would you to stabilize it? And why would you include phosphorus if that is not what is an ASEA? And of course, the part I have been hung up on the whole time – why does it show things that AREN’T what is supposed to be in ASEA?

     Gears, if he is still reading, can opt to comment more on the EPR vs NMR aspect of this since I never worked with EPR. But that would be purely academic. No matter how you slice it that spectra in the video does not prove anything and doesn’t even seem to be looking at what is supposed to be ASEA in the first place.

371. # Scotton 22 Dec 2012 at 7:50 am

     And to re-hash AGAIN, ASEA is NOT intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent ANY disease.

     Translated – we KNOW it doesn’t do anything, we ADMIT it doesn’t do anything, but we’re taking money for it anyway. THAT is what the statement above means. If you can’t see how completely unethical and logically bankrupt that is, well, there is no hope for you.

     I mean all of you want me to wait until they have a published study on HUMANS in PUBMED about a DISEASE PROCESS… blah, blah, blah.

     BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT TAKES FOR YOU TO HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES ANYTHING AT ALL! How in the world do you not have the faintest inkling of this fact given how many times it’s been explained? Are you truly THAT determined to completely ignore anything which might impair your ability to extract money from those even more gullible than yourself?

     (I guess I just answered my own question – yes. Motivated reasoning FTW. Arguing with my dining room table would be more productive. I’ll go do that for a while.)

372. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 22 Dec 2012 at 7:54 am

     I publicly apologize to Narad even though I’m not speaking to him UNTIL he admits that Chase N. Peterson, MD, who wrote the forward to Dr. Gary Samuelson’s book, “The Science of Healing Revealed” has a real title of “Former Dean of Admissions for Harvard.

     Oooh, a new level of maturity! The silent treatment! Let us know what we can all do to achieve this, and finally the thread will die down!

     The links are totally irrelevant to the claims. Anyone who thinks you have anything else, has to be a blubbering idiot.

     Weing, there is a sad coda to this actually – another group who thinks she might have anything are the desperately ill. Emphasis on the “desperate”

     1) they don’t yet have a published article
     a) in PubMed exclusively (no other journal will suffice)
     b) that contains hundreds of studies
     c) to support a claim about a specific DISEASE
     d) that is on humans, NOT mice
     2) it uses MLM as its worldwide distribution method
     3) the company’s claims are unproven even though they are the strongest claims ANY supplement can make regarding its product, and
     4) the company’s claims are vague because they say that it can help maintain proper balance inside the body to support the immune system and healing process.
     5) it’s made using the raw materials of salt and water as its starting ingredients
     6) the patents only protect the PROCESS whereby the salt and water molecules are dismantled and put back together in a different molecular formation that creates a saline solution of balanced sets of reducant and oxidant molecules (8 of each) that are reactive but stable (so they do not neutralize themselves). Patents should relate to disease processes or they are of no value.
     7) being the first to market with a patented product that has no competition and is proven to be safe doesn’t provide enough incentive for people to get involved
     8) it attracts gullible people who are just out to make a fast buck by duping people with unstoppable autoships

     Pubmed is a database, not a journal. There are no publications that specifically test efficacy against individual conditions in humans. The prior probability is very low given the simplicity of the ingredients and the manner in which they are processed, along with the complexity of the body and the chemical reactivity of the stomach. Despite this they sell the product in a way that places nearly all the risk on the backs of salespeople, exploiting a well-known loophole in consumer protection legislation with marketing using recognized terminology that is a red flag for quackery. And its proponents show up to argue tenaciously about its efficacy with know evidence of understanding basic science, skeptical thinking or the ability to recognize counter-arguments. The only thing they appear to have learned is how to parrot the carefully constructed nonsense of the company that is just a hair on the side of being legal, while still being completely inaccurate. The rest of your comments appear to be the usual grammatically correct, factually wrong blathering about patents, the cost of testing and irrelevant facts regarding redox signalling. I alone have refuted them multiple times, and the fact that you keep repeating them suggests to me you may indeed have had a stroke that prevents you from learning. You do seem to grasp “repetition” but clearly are failing to move on to “comprehension”.

     oops… in the world and to live a life that matters. Money is not that important to me as long as we have our basic needs, I’m really pretty much of a minimalist.

     You don’t seem to realize the fact that you are taking desperate, probably financially strapped people (medical treatment is expensive) and removing money from their pockets on the basis of false hope. Are you disgusted at the way megachurches take social security checks from impoverished senior citizens who are trying to buy their way into heaven? I am, and I am similarly disgusted at your exploitation of people with chronic, life threatening and painful conditions to sell expensive salt water with no empirical justification.

     Please just have a conversation with me, snide comments aside. Give me the benefit of the doubt until we at least get through the crux of your dilemma regarding those slides presented. If they’re wrong, I want to know it.

     There are hundreds of comments that have civilly pointed out the flaws in your nonsense. You have replied to them with the same logical fallacies and irrelevant links. We are explaining to you, but you are waving your hands like a Muppet without bothering to listen. And I dislike this, in part because Muppets are awesome, you are not worthy to be compared to them.

     When I got involved, we didn’t even have the promise of ANY studies on the horizon so I had to either accept it or de-bunk it if I wanted to take action NOW and not wait until it took off without me… and regret seeing myself saying “well damn, I wish I’d seen that potential, I’d be a millionaire right now!” [And not because money is my motivation but because money buys freedom and the power to help other people in more significant ways.]

     1) You say this with pride, as if it were a good thing.
     2) There are myriad companies that succeed only in fleecing investors and customers. A company that makes unfounded structure-function claims and markets salt water is probably one of them. I am sorry you have poured so much time and money into this. I am sorry you desperately want ASEA to be all it promotes itself as being. But the chance that any of its claims will turn out to be empirically valid are vanishingly small. It is hard to admit to one’s self that an enormous error has been made, and that you have been duped. But as an accountant and MBA holder, surely you understand the concept of sunk costs, an the idea that they should never impact decision making about the future. Keep this in mind as you contemplate whether to continue pouring money into products. Perhaps consider purchasing shares in the company instead, you can still gain from their success, but without having to unethically market to consumers.

     I sought advice from people who are FAR smarter than me who could not de-bunk it either and who actually became involved because they TOO got intrigued by the research which seemed plausible and valid in the absence of any information to the contrary

     Were any of them specialists in any of the areas relevant to ASEA’s medical claims? Gastroenterologists, doctors in general, biologists, etc., or just “smart people” without any understanding of just how hard it is to make a sick body healthy? I’ve very much been making fun of you, now I’m a little sad for you. I don’t like to be sad, so please go away.

     Do you not see that if you wait until it’s self-evident, then the financial opportunity will have long passed? I mean all of you want me to wait until they have a published study on HUMANS in PUBMED about a DISEASE PROCESS… blah, blah, blah [sic]
     

     So what you’re saying is, you can’t wait until human studies exist, because it would interfere with your ability to make money? That’s not a solid scientific argument.

     Also, have you ever heard the saying “if an opportunity appears too good to be true, it probably is”?

     I mean come on, at some point, can’t you just look at a body of evidence as a WHOLE, all the pieces that make up the parts, and come to a logical conclusion BEFORE it hits Dr. Oz stage

     1) The “body of evidence” as a whole incorporates basic biology, chemistry and physics, and one of the reasons we object to your claims is because no matter what you do to salt water, it’s extremely unlikely that it will have wide-ranging positive effects on disease processes or athletic performance (bar hyponatremia).
     2) Again, know your audience. Search for “Dr. Oz” on sciencebasedmedicine and see what turns up. Dr. Oz is a bit of a fame-beguiled idiot. You’d probably like him, or at least agree with him. He also thinks somebody saying X cures cancer means it actually cures cancer.

     because by THAT time, everybody will already know about, will already know someone to get it from… I mean you all keep saying I’m buying everything the company is selling without having a brain to think for myself and I’m being duped by my blindness because I’m already in, but I see it as YES they don’t have everything but they have ENOUGH. Entrepreneurs have succeeded with a lot less to go on.

     1) Business success is not the same thing as scientific efficacy
     2) I don’t doubt you have a brain. Very close to the same brain I have. Which means that unless you are careful and rigorous in how you assess evidence, you are amazingly vulnerable to various logical fallacies and cognitive biases. The rules of science, replication, extension, objective test, public discussion and acknowledgement of criticisms, exist to defend against these biases, because we’re still just jumped-up apes programmed by evolution to powerful cognitive blinders.

     Merry Christmas!

373. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 22 Dec 2012 at 7:55 am

     Fucking hell, blockquote fail (PLEASE SWITCH TO A BLOGGING SERVICE WITH A PREVIEW FUNCTION!!!!)

     There should be a close tag for the blockquote after “[sic]“.

374. # The Daveon 22 Dec 2012 at 12:26 pm

     During this Holiday Season, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has revealed to me a prediction:

     Tracy, et al claim that an article supporting ASEA will be published in “a medical journal” in the spring. The FSM has made it known unto me that no such article will be published and then Tracy et al will return to this forum asking to be given a little more time, coming up with excuses why it didn’t get published yet, or even claiming a conspiracy by Big Pharma (who totes owns, like, all teh medical journals) to suppress this information to injure the credibility of ASEA to protect Big Pharma’s profits.

     What I’ve never understood about the “Big Pharma suppressing the little guy” conspiracy is this:
     Supposedly Big Pharma is only profit driven. So when they see a company hawking some other remedy, therefore competing with Big Pharma’s profits and making lots of money off of their product, why wouldn’t Big Pharma just purchase said product and sell it themselves, therefore making all the profit the other company supposedly was making, instead of investing tons of money to suppress said money-making product, without being able to then make any money off of the investment.

     I know the conspiracy usually says that Big Pharma is afraid because it actually cures the disease instead of treat the symptoms (utter BS) and therefore Big Pharma will go out of business because everybody will be healthy (more utter BS), but then that begs the question, what does the supplement company plan on doing once everybody has been cured and no longer needs their own product? Or is a “maintenance dose” necessary to stay healthy, once the SCAM product has “healed” you? If so, why couldn’t Big Pharma continue to make a profit off of the maintenance doses of the products users…

     Whoa, hold on… All this round-and-round is making me dizzy… I think I need a break… Wait, does salt water also cure dizziness?…

375. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:06 pm

     regarding the Zeeman effect, are you talking about the 1st chart “ASEA Composition” or the 2nd chart “EPR Spectrum” — (sorry!)

     I’m talking about trying to think about things that are put in front of your nose. (The anomalous Zeeman effect is the preface to the Story of Spin, to invoke Sin-itiro Tomonaga.)

     In the spirit of taking my own advice, I was wondering whether gears or nybgrus could enlighten me as to whether assigning “integral” [sic] values to the areas under those 31P peaks makes any sense.

376. # Chrison 22 Dec 2012 at 1:33 pm

     The Dave:
     

     Tracy, et al claim that an article supporting ASEA will be published in “a medical journal” in the spring.

     I did say “PubMed indexed, so that should have been a hint that it is not a journal, Tracy is showing that she is out of her depth and does not even know it. It reminds me of the guys who tinker in their garage and claim to have made a “Free Energy” motor, and then try to make it work in an audience of physicists and engineers.

     I used Google to see if there were any sellers giving away free samples of ASEA, but did not find any. I did, however, find some forum conversations from around two years ago. First there is this message that quotes another. And then when I open that ACEA Scam article, well look who I found (after clicking “more messages”):
     

     Tracy Powers King · Lexington, Kentucky
     your cells are made up of salt water which makes it the perfect vehicle for holding the molecules stable without reacting until they’re in your body. it has 16 years and $17 million and 30 patents to back it up. anyone wondering should just keep googling if you’re going to use google as your sole source of checking up on this company, keep searching, the deeper you dig, the more convicted you will get. and google “ty tribble” while you’re at it, pathetic! the internet truly is the bathroom wall of the world.
     Reply ·
     · February 15, 2011 at 1:05pm

     Does that look familiar?

377. # Chrison 22 Dec 2012 at 1:39 pm

     I know I was influenced by Brian Dunning’s recent Skeptoid podcast on free energy, but I also remember years ago reading Bob Park’s Voodoo Science. He went into great detail on Dennis Lee who is scientifically incompetent, yet is still trying to get investors for his special machine:
     http://skepdic.com/dennislee.html

     I bet ASEA has lots in common with the Free Energy scammers. Both are trying to get something from nothing with lots of hand waving.

378. # Quillon 22 Dec 2012 at 1:40 pm

     Do you not see that if you wait until it’s self-evident, then the financial opportunity will have long passed?

     And there is fuel of the passion for this tepid water, the fire by which it all burns, and eventually the smoke covering the mirror.

     And for what it’s worth, I think ASEA will be mentioned in publications this spring, probably with headlines like “Attorney General Cracks Down on Scam Product.”

379. # Chrison 22 Dec 2012 at 1:41 pm

     Sorry for not closing the italics after the book title. I hope I did not italicize the internet.

380. # The Daveon 22 Dec 2012 at 2:06 pm

     ” keep searching, the deeper you dig, the more convicted you will get. and google “ty tribble” while you’re at it, pathetic! the internet truly is the bathroom wall of the world.”

     Just for kicks and giggles, I did google “ty tribble”. I’m not exactly sure what I should be looking at. The first hit for his name is his personal blog with the tagline “Husband, Dad, Entrepreneur”. How utterly contemptible and pathetic that he works from home to spend time with his wife and kids! The horror!

     Tracy et al has shown just how bathroom-wall-y the internet can be

     “And for what it’s worth, I think ASEA will be mentioned in publications this spring, probably with headlines like “Attorney General Cracks Down on Scam Product.””

     My only hope is that we don’t have to wait til the spring

381. # Sialison 22 Dec 2012 at 2:39 pm

     Tracy Powers King · Lexington, Kentucky

     … the deeper you dig, the more convicted you will get.

     Maybe the Attorney General will help Tracy realize her dreams and show her how ‘convicted she can get’.

382. # Sialison 22 Dec 2012 at 2:42 pm

     As far as the Attorney General investigations go, what about all the physicians and chiropractors that are selling ASEA to their patients? They are making the same claims as Tracy, but they are indeed licensed and practicing medical professionals. What about them? The AG and the medical boards are not going to go after them all. How could they? Sad world we live in.

383. # Naradon 22 Dec 2012 at 2:59 pm

     Does that look familiar?

     I kind of wish that I could prevent this exposure to the “I am a winner” indoctrination mantra from making it out of short-term memory.

384. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 22 Dec 2012 at 3:08 pm

     This whole scheme reminds me of the Mannatech expose a few years ago. Another MLM “cure-all”, except the company couldn’t make any health claims publicly, of course, so it was sold as a supplement. But it was all “nudge nudge wink wink” when the salespeople got together to discuss how to sell the garbage to their gullible friends, neighbours and co-workers.

     One of the major newtworks snuck a hidden camera into one of their sales rallies and the company leaders were caught coaching their salesmen on the verbiage they could and could not use to sell to stuff. Off the record (on hidden camera) the company claimed it could cure cancer (and pretty much everything else under the sun) but they crafted all kinds of legal loopholes and carefully-worded scripts they had their salespeople memorize.

     Another example of this scam is CanCell or Protocell, yet another MLM product. All kinds of claims are made in secret, without one iota of scientific evidence, but no official claims are ever stated to remain compliant.

     And it seems the ASEA people don’t like Ty Tribble because he’s a MLM salesperson selling a different “health product” and they consider him competition. Kind of like Big Pharma suppressing the competition.

     Those comments on the Tribble site are very revealing. Some of the ASEA telemarketers were stating back in 2010 that “studies were just about to be published” and we should all “be patient.” That was over three years ago, and still nothing. Maybe ASEA is learning from Burzynski how to delay and never publish clinical studies.

     I haven’t heard of this scam hitting Canada yet but I will be sure to file as many complaints with as many consumer protection agencies as I can.

385. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 22 Dec 2012 at 3:33 pm

     Turns out Mannatech was made of nothing more than sugar. The company claimed to have all kinds of research to show that our bodies were “deficient” in the particular type of sugar in the product, and by adding that sugar back, our bodies could cure themselves of anything. They showed all kinds of sciencey charts, papers and presentations to back up their claims.

     Sound familiar?

     At least with Mannatech and ASEA you’re getting (very expensive) sugar and salt, the basics of any good condiments and seasonings pantry.

386. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 22 Dec 2012 at 4:10 pm

     I also love how Tracy King tries to convince us of her credibility and sincerity by telling us she’s married (to her high-school sweetheart, no less!) and has three children.

     I live in a city with a major organized crime problem. Bikers, mafia, the whole works. At least a couple of times a month there is a gangland “settling of accounts” and one of these scumbags get murdered. In the news coverage it turns out most of these criminals were married (often for several years to the same person) and most have children, grandchildren and gasp! maybe even a dog or cat. These are the most despicable people on the planet, having conspired to smuggle hundreds of kilos of heroin or committed execution-style murders.

     Bernie Madoff was married for 50 years and had two kids. Does that mean he wasn’t defrauding people?

387. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 22 Dec 2012 at 5:08 pm

     I have my own predictions. A paper will appear, in a low-impact journal, it will not be research on human illness, it will have a low n, and it will not prove that ASEA can cure anything.

     ASEA will not be sued by the FTC or similar agency, because they pursue, with utmost fidelity, compliance with the woefully broken DSHEA that allows them to make whatever claims they want so long as they are meaningless. The odd enthusiastic proponent will be reprimanded by the state and declaimed by the company. People will lose money in the face of false hope, and nothing much will change.

388. # Sarah from Germanyon 22 Dec 2012 at 5:24 pm

     Asea acquired the intellectual property from Medical Discoveries Inc. They were developing a new drug called MDI-P. They had 2 IND’s submitted to the FDA. Here is a copy (a pdf) of the toxicity study they did on dogs conducted by WIL Research Laboratories Inc. out of Ohio. I know you will all hate the link name but here it is:
     http://myaseaonline.info/asea.net/USEnglish/safetystudiesfullstudies/TS1101.pdf

     Google MDI-P Medical Discoveries – there is a lot of info that describes the scope of where they were going with their discovery. In the end, they were scientists and not good business men. I appreciate everyone’s participation in this discussion – I agree that the FDA has it’s place and I applaud all of you for being devoted watch-dogs and skeptics to new products on the market. I am confident that Dr. Nieman from Appalachian State University will provide some credible evidence to support Asea.

389. # Moebiuson 22 Dec 2012 at 5:25 pm

     Lather, rinse, repeat.

     These last several days of commentary have been very entertaining and enlightening. Their ability to produce endless reams of useless data is impressive; I can see now how these schemes work, with proponents like that. You know, the ones trying to make money so that they can give it away.

390. # Sialison 22 Dec 2012 at 6:20 pm

     @ASEA people, please clarify for me exactly why Barr Pharmaceuticals turned down your product.

391. # Sialison 22 Dec 2012 at 6:26 pm

     WLU, If I may add but one addition, some people will lose more than money and hope. Some patients are being led away from appropriate and effective medical care because of false claims such as those being made here. That could cost them their life.

392. # Chrison 22 Dec 2012 at 7:49 pm

     To add to Sialis’ comment: like the injuries described here and here.

393. # Sialison 22 Dec 2012 at 8:02 pm

     BTW, since ASEA is so easily subject to contamination per ASEA CORPORATE, one should not use it to irrigate their sinus’ or in a nebulizer for their lungs. People have died from doing nasal irrigations using contaminated water. It is reckless for ASEA to promote their product for such purposes knowing full well that it is easily subject to contamination, regardless of the contaminant.

     http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57499285-10391704/tap-water-in-neti-pots-behind-two-brain-eating-amoeba-deaths-in-2011-investigation-finds/

394. # The Daveon 22 Dec 2012 at 10:39 pm

     “I have my own predictions. A paper will appear, in a low-impact journal, it will not be research on human illness, it will have a low n, and it will not prove that ASEA can cure anything. ”

     I’m not sure which will be worse, having to argue with true believers about why the stud wasn’t published as promised (per my predicction) or trying to explain why the study, even though it was published in a “peer-reviewed” journal, is still worthless…

395. # nybgruson 23 Dec 2012 at 1:21 am

     1) I go with the “no paper at all” prediction

     2) TheDave: Excellent comment! (today, 9:26am)

     3) I am now back home with family and officially on vacation so any responses will be short and sweet. In this case, Gears is vastly more qualified to answer the question about NMR. Also, I have not had the time (or will or desire) to read every word of gibberish put forth here, so I do not know the full context of your question. However, as I was corrected by Gears, the “integral value” under the NMR peak means nothing. I had thought it was quantitative of how many bonds of the same type there were, but Gears corrected me by saying that only applied to 1H NMR and even then not completely robustly. In any event, both Gears and I are (unless something has come up that I am not educated enough to have caught and he is) in agreement that relevant to the discussion and claims, the NMR spectra is useless.

     4) Happy Holidays to all! Enjoy the season, friends, family, and a well deserved over indulgence of relaxation, food, and drink.

396. # Naradon 23 Dec 2012 at 3:27 am

     I’ve been rereading.

     If you look at a 13C spectrum of a known compound, you will typically see that carbonyl carbons (R2CO) and quaternary carbons (R4C) have smaller peaks than unsaturated aliphatic carbons, for example. I am not sure why the relaxation times are different

     It seems as though the answer here lies in the availability of dipole-dipole relaxation. Directly attached hydrogens seem to go for this until one gets up to methyl groups, which have twirling to hand. And, yes, I’m way out of my depth, but the water’s nice.

397. # nybgruson 23 Dec 2012 at 10:30 am

     @narad:

     That makes sense to me. I was trying to think my way through it the other day and realized I would actually need to do some reading else I would be chucking up a just-so story and got lazy.

     But yeah, dipoles and the relative electron density and the interactions therein must be the explanation, it is just a question of exactly how.

     And swimming out of your depth feels great – it really lets you improve your stroke

398. # TracyKingon 23 Dec 2012 at 12:37 pm

     @ Sialis, “@ASEA people, please clarify for me exactly why Barr Pharmaceuticals turned down your product.”

     According to company literature and the movie “Genesis” (where they documented the offer), the founders turned down the pharmaceutical company’s offer, not the other way around. Here is a 1-minute trailer to the 20-minute movie:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgbnwcdlvc

     @ The Dave “Just for kicks and giggles, I did google “ty tribble”. I’m not exactly sure what I should be looking at. The first hit for his name is his personal blog with the tagline “Husband, Dad, Entrepreneur”. How utterly contemptible and pathetic that he works from home to spend time with his wife and kids! The horror!”

     Ty Tribble is a gold-chain-wearing porsche-driving slick MLM guy who hops companies, and he’s exactly what gives MLM a bad rep. He started Max International, an MLM company that had a glutathione-enhancing product which had some real science and credible doctors but all of the top Max people moved over to ASEA when they found out about ASEA’s glutathione studies (they already knew the benefits of glutathione, catalase and SOD and had seen what it could do for people). To stop the mass exit (and “punish” those who left) he put out ASEA-bashing youtube’s, he didn’t try to refute anything, just dismissed it by walking out in the ocean and picking up ocean water and calling it ASEA and laughing. Made him look rather petty I thought. He’s apparently tried to clean up his act by burying some of his early “work” (he’s apparently quite handy now with internet marketing now so it’s no surprising he was able to suppress some of his early embarrassing videos of himself), and he took off the jewelry but he’s still a slime-ball.

     @ Narad, my quick laymen’s research led me down the path that maybe the phosphate has something to do with the buffer solution commonly used in biological research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_buffered_saline. Heck if I know, since I’m so stupid, but I’ve forwarded your q, so rather than point out how ignorant my assumption is, why don’t we just wait on that point since I’m obviously out of my element.

     @ all, regarding how it can survive the stomach lining, as I stated earlier:

     “ASEA is absorbed quickly through water absorption channels in the soft tissues of the mouth, esophagus, and stomach lining. The Redox Signaling molecules in ASEA are able to survive the harsh acidic environment of the stomach until they are absorbed. Traces of residual Redox Signaling molecules have been found in the blood hours after ingestion.” Per company literature.

     I found this website http://www.anaesthesiamcq.com/FluidBook/fl1_2.php which led my dullard brain to conclude that it COULD BE plausible for ASEA to be absorbed, and it COULD BE possible that there is an explanation for why people might be able to see results when used in the eyes, in a nebulizer, and on skin (even though NOWHERE in company literature are users directed to use it in this way despite that safety studies did explore these uses).

     Some excerpts (since I know no one really opens links on here_:

     “Water molecules cross cell membranes by 2 pathways which we can call the lipid pathway & the water channel pathway.

     In some membranes the water flux is very high and cannot be accounted for by water diffusion across lipid barriers. A consideration of this fact lead to the hypothesis that membranes must contain protein which provide an aqueous channel through which water can pass. The water channels have now been found and are discussed below. Flow of water through these channels can occur as a result of diffusion or by filtration.

     The above discussion refers to water moving from one side of a lipid barrier to the other and this is relevant to the cell membrane. Other ‘membranes’ need to be considered; in particular the capillary membrane & the lymphatic endothelial membrane. These are tubular sheets of very many endothelial cells, each with their own cell membrane, but also with a potential pathway for water & solutes existing at the junction of adjacent cells. Similarly all epithelial cell layers can be considered as ‘membranes’ through which water passes and these also have intercellular pathways.

     Water can cross capillary membranes via:
     •the intercellular gaps between the endothelial cells
     •pores in the endothelial cells special areas where the cytoplasm is so thinned out that it produces deficiencies known as fenestrations.
     •diffusion across the lipid cell membranes of the endothelial cells

     Fenestrations are found only in capillaries in special areas where a very high water permeability is necessary for the function of these areas. A high water permeability is clearly necessary in the glomerular capillaries and water permeability here is very much higher than in muscle capillaries. Other areas with fenestrations are the capillaries in the intestinal villi and in ductless glands.

     Water also easily enters the lymphatic capillaries via gaps between the lymphatic endothelial cells. These gaps function also as flap valves and this also promotes forward lymph flow when the capillaries are compressed.

     The presence of specific pores (channels) in the cell membrane has long been predicted but the proteins involved in these water channels have only recently been characterised. At present at least 6 different water channel proteins (named aquaporins) have been found in various cell membranes in humans. These aquaporin proteins form complexes that span the membrane and water moves through these channels passively in response to osmotic gradients. These channel proteins are present in highest concentrations in tissues where rapid transmembrane water movement is important (eg in renal tubules).

     Aquaporin 0 is found in the lens in the eye. It has a role in maintaining lens clarity. The gene for this protein is located on chromosome 12.

     Aquaporin 1 (previously known as CHIP28) is present in the red cell membrane, the proximal convoluted tubule and the thin descending limb of the Loop of Henle in the kidney, secretory and absorptive tissues in the eye, choroid plexus, smooth muscle, unfenestrated capillary endothelium, eccrine sweat glands, hepatic bile ducts and gallbladder epithelium. The Colton blood group antigen is located on extracellular loop A of aquaporin 1 in red cells. The gene is located on chromosome 7.

     Aquaporin 2 is the ADH-responsive water channel in the collecting duct in the inner medulla. Insertion of the channel into the apical membrane occurs following ADH stimulation. The gene is located on chromosome 12.

     Aquaporins 3 and 4 are present in the basolateral membrane in the collecting duct. They are not altered by ADH levels. Recently, aquaporin 4 has been found in the ADH-secreting neurones of the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei in the hypothalamus and it has been suggested that it may be involved in the hypothalamic osmoreceptor which regulates body water balance. (See Section 5.3). The gene for aquaporin 3 is located on chromosome 7.

     Aquaporin 5 is found in lacrimal and salivary glands and in the lung. It may be the target antigen in Sjogren’s syndrome.

     Aquaporin research is currently an active field. These proteins have been identified IN ALL LIVING ORGANISMS.”

     Ok I’m done pasting. Seems like I read a lot of stuff about “endothelial cells” when I looked up “redox signaling cystic fibrosis” on PubMed, and I think that’s what MDI-P was studying as evidenced by their patent application? Again, I’m not implyinig ASEA does anything for CF, I’m just satisfying a reasonableness test about whether it’s a scam or not, and looking at evidence to suggest that the product has value. And I’ve heard of people seeing results spraying their aching tired swollen muscles and joints and seeing results, maybe it’s placebo but maybe it’s capillary absorption as explained above?

     And can I just say I’ve never met a more CHILDISH group of people in my life? Sorry I got caught up in it with my “I’m not talking to you until…” comment, I was just trying to have a little fun with you and going tit for tat without launching into the sadistic disrespectful personal attacks that you all enjoy. I get that there’s a double standard here since I’m out-numbered. And yes I realize PubMed is not a medical journal, I was just responding to all the harping that it’s no good unless it’s in there. A good journal for us (at first) would be AJSM, and eventually, ARS, but I’m sure that yes, at first it might be a smaller lesser-known one, and yes it might get held up in review. But I, for one, am glad they are pursuing publication. The product is just ahead of the science right now but it will catch up as they continue to invest more in R&D. For me, there is enough scientific and anecdotal evidence for me to want to keep taking it and to keep introducing it to others who can make up their own minds. I’m sure that more than a few people benefitted from moldy bread and aspirin (and any other number of things I could name!) before it was widely accepted and scientifically validated. ALL catefory-creator products follow the same continuum, ALL face criticism and ridicule at first.

     And my goodness, all the posts about scamming people out of their money and how expensive it is? I don’t know how much you people earn, but my daily use is the equivalent price of a cup of coffee for heaven’s sake, or less than a pack of cigs, which ppl seem to have no trouble affording. It’s all about establishing a value for it, not how much it costs, I’m happy to be able to give people options, it’s up to them to make up their own minds. Yours are jaded because of what you do I guess, and all the scams that you see, but thankfully most people just need to satisfy a reasonableness standard.

     Have a wonderful holiday with your familes. We all want the same things in life, to be able to dance with our grandchildren at their wedding, and enjoy

399. # TracyKingon 23 Dec 2012 at 12:42 pm

     quality of life to the end of our days. I trust that you are doing everything in YOUR power to ensure that these goals are not left to chance, as am I.

400. # TracyKingon 23 Dec 2012 at 12:48 pm

     @ the dave, ““I have my own predictions. A paper will appear, in a low-impact journal, it will not be research on human illness, it will have a low n, and it will not prove that ASEA can cure anything.

     It will DEFINITELY not be a published study on human ILLNESS (catch up with me on this point please, lest people who aren’t reading everying like nybgrus leave here misinformed), rather the human CONDITION. NO claims made by the company imply otherwise.

401. # Chrison 23 Dec 2012 at 2:10 pm

     Ms. King, how is ASEA any different from the free energy claims of Dennis Lee?

     And you say: “quality of life to the end of our days. I trust that you are doing everything in YOUR power to ensure that these goals are not left to chance, as am I.”

     And it seems you have spent most of your days during the last two years cutting and pasting marketing blather, and have bothered to learn anything.

402. # The Daveon 23 Dec 2012 at 2:19 pm

     Speaking of low-impact: “A good journal for us (at first) would be AJSM, and eventually, ARS,”

     I’m amazed at how low you have your sites set:
     http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal201672
     (impact factor 3.792)

     Is this the ARS you are referring to:
     http://www.liebertpub.com/ars
     (impact factor 8.456)

     “It will DEFINITELY not be a published study on human ILLNESS (catch up with me on this point please, lest people who aren’t reading everying like nybgrus leave here misinformed), rather the human CONDITION. NO claims made by the company imply otherwise.”

     Catch up with US on this point: if your “groundbreaking” peer-reviewed article doesn’t address a specific disease state, or states, and show improvement in treating it, then the study still doesn’t show that your product is effective and is just as worthless at proving your point as all your youtube/anecdotes, even if it were published in a jounal that actually has a high impact factor like the NEJM.

403. # Chrison 23 Dec 2012 at 2:35 pm

     Oops… “have not bothered to learn anything.”

404. # DavidRLoganon 23 Dec 2012 at 3:09 pm

     This thread was a real gem! Fun read on a lazy christmas-break day. Thanks NYB, Gears, Chris, WLU and others for your informative posts.

     It’s hilarious that, after all the posts, it was easier to understand c13-NMR than it was to understand how this product is supposed to work

     Happy Holidays SBM!!!

     -David

405. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 23 Dec 2012 at 3:22 pm

     According to company literature and the movie “Genesis” (where they documented the offer), the founders turned down the pharmaceutical company’s offer, not the other way around. Here is a 1-minute trailer to the 20-minute movie

     One last time, could you link the YouTube policy where they discuss their vetting process to ensure no false claims are uploaded to their website? Because in my experience, any moron can post any link on youtube and there’s no process to ensure the results are true. Put another way, how do you know the ASEA link isn’t self-serving propaganda made up out of whole cloth to help them sell more salt water?

     Ty Tribble is a gold-chain-wearing porsche-driving slick MLM guy who hops companies, and he’s exactly what gives MLM a bad rep. He started Max International, an MLM company that had a glutathione-enhancing product which had some real science and credible doctors but all of the top Max people moved over to ASEA when they found out about ASEA’s glutathione studies (they already knew the benefits of glutathione, catalase and SOD and had seen what it could do for people). To stop the mass exit (and “punish” those who left) he put out ASEA-bashing youtube’s, he didn’t try to refute anything, just dismissed it by walking out in the ocean and picking up ocean water and calling it ASEA and laughing. Made him look rather petty I thought. He’s apparently tried to clean up his act by burying some of his early “work” (he’s apparently quite handy now with internet marketing now so it’s no surprising he was able to suppress some of his early embarrassing videos of himself), and he took off the jewelry but he’s still a slime-ball.

     So what you’re saying is we have evidence that not all MLM companies are honest? The consumer protection organs are insufficient to ensure complete ethical conduct and honesty from these companies? That I’ll buy.

     But ASEA, they’re different.

     “ASEA is absorbed quickly through water absorption channels in the soft tissues of the mouth, esophagus, and stomach lining. The Redox Signaling molecules in ASEA are able to survive the harsh acidic environment of the stomach until they are absorbed. Traces of residual Redox Signaling molecules have been found in the blood hours after ingestion.” Per company literature

     Company literature that is not peer reviewed is about as meaningful as toilet paper.

     which led my dullard brain to conclude that it COULD BE plausible for ASEA to be absorbed, and it COULD BE possible that there is an explanation for why people might be able to see results when used in the eyes, in a nebulizer, and on skin (even though NOWHERE in company literature are users directed to use it in this way despite that safety studies did explore these uses).

     “Could be” isn’t the same as “is”. The same problem as before – merely because someone thinks a finding applies to their pet product doesn’t mean it does apply. Until you have results involving ASEA specifically, you’re wasting your time.

     Some excerpts (since I know no one really opens links on here

     Why would you, when the stem of the link invariably does not involve any reliable source of information? It saves tremendous amounts of time to discard links that start with youtube, ASEA or similarly suspect sources when we know that even if they say something there is no guarantee that it is true? Not all information is equal. I will happily click on a link to pubmed, but I’ll close it again just as quickly if it doesn’t use the words “ASEA” or similar indications it applies directly to the topic at hand.

     And can I just say I’ve never met a more CHILDISH group of people in my life?

     Why, because we are unwilling to take you at your word? Because we are quick to point out that there is very good reason to discount a source of information that is extremely self-serving? That we insist on questioning your claims rather than taking them on faith? It seems this is the opposite of childish, as a child must passively accept the statements of adults while we demand meaningful information that reasonably represents what is known about reality.

     Sorry I got caught up in it with my “I’m not talking to you until…” comment, I was just trying to have a little fun with you and going tit for tat without launching into the sadistic disrespectful personal attacks that you all enjoy

     Sadistic? Overdramatic much? Several times you have repeated the same inaccurate, biased or previously-discounted links and statements without modification or any indication you have grasped the criticisms ventured. Past a certain point, it seems reasonable to make the apt comparison to the learning disabled and head-injured. Want us to stop? How about you show evidence you’ve bothered to understand our replies.

     Of course, I know why. Humans have an innate tendency to avoid acknowledging information they find personally threatening to their self-concepts, or anything suggesting they have been wrong. Instead they project on their critics, claiming their criticisms are mean or unfair, thus having a reason to discount the criticisms. There’s nothing wrong with admitting you’ve made a mistake, painful as it is, that’s the only way to correct your misapprehensions about the world.

     I get that there’s a double standard here since I’m out-numbered.

     Actually, it’s not a double-standard, and that’s why you are upset. We’re asking the same standards apply to all claims of fact, you’re the one who is asking for special dispensation – essentially because you are selling something.

     For me, there is enough scientific and anecdotal evidence for me to want to keep taking it and to keep introducing it to others who can make up their own minds

     Sigh. The fact that you include anecdotal evidence as evidence is further evidence of your double-standard and failure to appreciate the scientific process.

     I’m sure that more than a few people benefitted from moldy bread and aspirin (and any other number of things I could name!) before it was widely accepted and scientifically validated. ALL catefory-creator products follow the same continuum, ALL face criticism and ridicule at first.

     Sure, but before those products could be sold, that ridicule had to be met with evidence. The actual process is “idea, ridicule, investigation, publication, criticism, replication, sales”. You’re skipping several of those steps, with no real reason other than “I want it” and, underneath that, “I sell it”.

     quality of life to the end of our days. I trust that you are doing everything in YOUR power to ensure that these goals are not left to chance, as am I.

     Yup. Regular exercise, a diet high in fruits, vegetables and nuts, low in meat and refined fats and sugar. I’m adding to that “a plan to ensure enough money in retirement”, and your plan seems to be based on something similar (the difference being mine is a retirement fund, yours is coming from the bank accounts of the sick and desperate).

406. # Naradon 23 Dec 2012 at 3:45 pm

     @ Narad, my quick laymen’s research led me down the path that maybe the phosphate has something to do with the buffer solution commonly used in biological research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_buffered_saline. Heck if I know, since I’m so stupid, but I’ve forwarded your q, so rather than point out how ignorant my assumption is, why don’t we just wait on that point since I’m obviously out of my element.

     The question whether it made sense to integrate 31P NMR peaks, which is what’s asserted in the legend on the spectrum? That’s been answered, in the negative.

407. # weingon 23 Dec 2012 at 4:06 pm

     “Again, I’m not implyinig ASEA does anything for CF, I’m just satisfying a reasonableness test about whether it’s a scam or not, and looking at evidence to suggest that the product has value.”

     I guess you must be smarter than all of us here to be able to perceive that it has value. Is that why you come here? To rub our stupidity in our faces?

408. # Naradon 23 Dec 2012 at 4:46 pm

     And I’ve heard of people seeing results spraying their aching tired swollen muscles and joints and seeing results, maybe it’s placebo but maybe it’s capillary absorption as explained above?

     I’m pretty sure that if a spritz of salt water can diffuse directly into your capillaries, you’ve got rather more serious things to worry about than “aching tired swollen muscles and joints.”

409. # se habla espolon 23 Dec 2012 at 5:50 pm

     I’ve been lurking until now, but here’s some background on stuff that the ASEA peddlers have been spamming SBM with for weeks, now.

     I’m just a well-meaning person who has ALSO thoroughly and thoughtfully studied the research and come to a different conclusion than you. I flew to the corporate headquarters and met the founders and the scientists and went to their conferences to meet the calibur of people ASEA is attracting

     So you went to Salt Lake City, the scam capitol of the country, to see these people, or did they come to you?
     The state of Utah has a marketing slogan that appears on its license plates, “Greatest Snow on Earth”. Those of us who live here know that’s the short version, suitable for non-resident consumption. The full version is “Greatest Snowjob on Earth”.
     The Utah culture places a premium on gullibility, crediting personal ‘testimony’, just-so stories and anecdotes above reality and verifiability. As a consequence, Utah is a great breeding and training ground for hucksters and hustlers: with ready access to so many easy marks, a sCAMmer can develop his pitch and his business practices on easy marks, before going out into the real world, where marks are a little harder to find. ASEA seems to have found some.
     Of course, with scamming as one of the primary economic factors of the state, Utah politicians are happy to support sCAM, and to provide legal cover for the sCAMmers.
     Someone, some time ago, mentioned the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco: that comment is well up the page by now. Nobody seemed to have noted that Pons and Fleischman did their cold fusion work at University of Utah: yes, the same place that Samuelson is from …. The UofU hospital, med and nursing schools are not too bad: that’s where my wife got her nursing degree.
     ——————————————-
     The ASEA hucksters have cited the North Carolina Research Institute as if it provides authority. It’s actually a real estate development on the site of an obsolete cotton mill, trying to become a minor-league Research Triangle. In its time, the cotton mill called itself the largest one in the world; it employed about 17,000 people in a town of about 40,000; the local radio station, WGTL, called it World’s Greatest Textile Land (since it was owned by Whitley’s Funeral Home, we locals called it Whitley Gets Them Last). They had to do something when the Dale Earnhardt Racing operation moved down the road to Mooresville: Earnhardt was their only remaining notable.
     Appalachian State University, née Appalachian State Teachers College, isn’t really a great bragging point either, to those of us who grew up in Kannapolis and left.

410. # Moebiuson 23 Dec 2012 at 7:14 pm

     On the positive side, all of these postings by ASEAmatics has given me a place to send anyone who might ask my opinion about the product.

     Nice to know that a scam that’s only worth the price of a coffee or pack of cigarettes per day is ok with Tracy. At least that gives us a yard-stick. Multiply that by a lot of sick and desperate people, you could make a living at it.

411. # Amaltheaon 23 Dec 2012 at 8:32 pm

     @Moebius: Good points.
     While it’s unlikely that anyone at work will me ask about ASEA it is a possibility and this is the best place to send them.

412. # Harriet Hallon 24 Dec 2012 at 1:40 pm

     I just read that the people who spend the most effort to defend their beliefs are usually those who are beginning to doubt and want to convince themselves that they are right. Explains a lot…

413. # The Daveon 24 Dec 2012 at 1:43 pm

     “I just read that the people who spend the most effort to defend their beliefs are usually those who are beginning to doubt and want to convince themselves that they are right. Explains a lot…”

     So does that mean we are more or less likely to actually convince someone on here? If they are beginning to doubt, we might help fuel those doubts, but if they are trying to convince themselves, they might be more defensive of further causes of doubt.

414. # Chrison 24 Dec 2012 at 1:44 pm

     Dr. Hall, their belief may be directly proportional to how much money they have invested in it. The more they have spent, the more they must believe it will reward them! Unfortunately as a multi-level-marketing scheme those at the bottom of the pyramid are automatically the losers.

415. # TracyKingon 09 Jan 2013 at 9:36 pm

     Per Dr. Samuelson regarding the q’s asked earlier:

     DIPPMPO molecules capture superoxides. DIPPMPO was only added in this case as an indicator to verify definitively that stable superoxides exist in ASEA. The stable superoxides that exist in ASEA were captured by the added DIPPMPO molecules. DIPPMPO, when it captures superoxides, forms two adducts, these can be detected by P31 NMR. The two peaks represent the existence of the two DIPPMPO adducts formed when in contact with the superoxides in ASEA. If there were no stable superoxides in ASEA, no superoxides would be captured and these two peaks would not exist. This is simply a common analytical technique used to verify the existence of superoxides in a solution. If someone has issue with this technique of measuring superoxides he/she will have to take it up with the whole scientific world. Stable superoxides are in ASEA. The novelty of this claim is that stable superoxides have not been detected before in saline solutions. They, along with the other molecules balanced in ASEA are what is meant by stable redox signaling molecules in the ASEA literature. ASEA is very unique in this regard. By the way EPR was also run on the DIPPMPO indicator with the same result. Superoxides are in ASEA.

     ROS detection is also possible by using techniques from fluorescent spectroscopy, you would need a fluorospectrometer, such as a “nanodrop 3300” or a 96 well fluorescent plate reader. R-PE (R-Phycoerythrin), an ROS indicator that changes fluorescence when exposed to ROS, as well as other indicators used to detect excess ROS in the blood and stomach liquids. Detailed reports are on the ASEA.net website. Any ASEA associate should have access to them. Two measurements are taken, baseline levels in the blood are measured and compared with the levels after ASEA has been introduced.

     - Gary

416. # TracyKingon 09 Jan 2013 at 10:06 pm

     @ Harriett, you really should re-read the private email I sent you where I was able to tell you the exact detailed testimonials that I have personally seen and witnessed, especially the ones with children, (that would be non-compliant if I posted) and why my belief in this product is completely unshakable so you can quit trying to figure me out (and quit belittling me)… it’s no mystery, if you had seen what I’ve seen, you would do the research too, just like I have, to try to figure out WHY it works — which is the exact path ASEA is currently taking by pursuing evidence-based studies with the Human Performance Laboratory and Appalachian State University instead of just relying on the MLM network to continue to tell the story. And regarding my vehemence in defending this product, I owe it to the public to correct your inaccurate reporting lest they make bad decisions that could affect their health and their financial future. To allow ignorance to flourish and perpetuate is just not in my DNA, it’s a personality issue, it’s that simple.

417. # TracyKingon 09 Jan 2013 at 10:17 pm

     Watch these 2 minutes 44:30-46:30 of this Harvard Food Law Society video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HCDeso6SVOI, he’s wrong of course, there IS something we can do now to correct mitochondrial dysfunction and impact our health positively.

418. # weingon 09 Jan 2013 at 10:17 pm

     “To allow ignorance to flourish and perpetuate is just not in my DNA, it’s a personality issue, it’s that simple.”
     Poppycock. Testimonials do not a study make. That is not science and you have just shown how you perpetuate ignorance.

419. # TracyKingon 09 Jan 2013 at 10:18 pm

     And to respond to someone else’s comment, lawyers have a bad rep too but you don’t make a generalization that all lawyers are evil greedy soul-less scumbags. Many people are succeeding in MLM because they are authentic and they are willing to do what most people aren’t which is to go AGAINST the grain and put up with people who mis-read and disrespect them. I’ll be back when we have our peer-reviewed study, happy new year all!

420. # TracyKingon 09 Jan 2013 at 10:39 pm

     Oh weing, we have more than testimonials, THIS explains SOME of the REASONS behind the results and the testimonials: http://teamreactive.com/docs/aseaandbig3.pdf, but it will take years and decades to FULLY understand the scope of this product. Just keep watching, not that it will ever be enough for you since you have invested too much in disbelieving it. I bet you are a member of the Flat Earth Society too. Matters not to me, I know in my heart what this product is doing, people with eyes will see, people with ears will hear. The science will catch up to this product, it’s inevitable. I’m glad your health is strong and no one in your family could benefit from this, not everyone is as fortunate as you, my job is to restore hope to those who are open.

421. # weingon 09 Jan 2013 at 10:47 pm

     “The science will catch up to this product, it’s inevitable. ” Spoken like a true non-scientist.

422. # Naradon 09 Jan 2013 at 11:34 pm

     The two peaks represent the existence of the two DIPPMPO adducts formed when in contact with the superoxides in ASEA. If there were no stable superoxides in ASEA, no superoxides would be captured and these two peaks would not exist.

     I take it that somebody missed the “if it’s so stable, why is spin-trapping necessary?” part.

423. # The Daveon 09 Jan 2013 at 11:43 pm

     “I bet you are a member of the Flat Earth Society too. ”

     Flat-Earthers reject/deny/ignore the science that provides evidence the Earth is in fact round, and stubbornly cling to their ignorance and non-scientific dogmas/beliefs.

     Sounds like they have more in common with the ASEA supporters that continue to come on here and defend there product, than the SBM crowd, which, as the name states, bases their practice, beliefs, and opinions on science.

424. # nybgruson 10 Jan 2013 at 12:57 am

     @Narad:

     First off, I am surprised this thread fired back up again.

     But secondly, I agree. I think I am out of my depth to comment authoritatively (maybe Gears could*), but it makes no sense to me why a stable molecule would form an adduct with anything. The concept of being stable means it has no energetic favor to adduct or otherwise react with anything.

     Anyways, once that science catches up, I’ll take a listen to Tracy King. Until then, ya got nothin’

425. # nybgruson 10 Jan 2013 at 12:58 am

     oh, the * was to make a comment that I was hoping my awesome synthetic chemist genie would appear at the call of his name

426. # gearson 10 Jan 2013 at 1:35 am

     My mistake. It looks like spin trapping is a legitimate spectroscopic technique, one that I was not previously familiar with. I was hasty in asserting that 31P NMR could not be used to detect superoxides in solution and I should have looked into it more closely. On the other hand, choosing an appropriate method for characterizing radicals does not necessarily mean the spectrum is real, but maybe I am being uncharitable. i’ll believe it when it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal. nybgrus does have a point that it is curious that a “stabilized” redox molecule should need a trap to characterize it (if it’s already trapped?).

     So again, sorry for my misplaced certainty that the spectrum was meaningless and to those of you whose comments were based on my claiming expertise. In the spirit that skepticism is admitting when you get it wrong, I hope this doesn’t tarnish my credibility too much :/

     Anyhow, I’m going to go ahead and move the goalposts and say that even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that ASEA has “stabilized redox molecules in saline solution” it does not follow that ASEA should have any therapeutic benefit whatsoever. To me, the chemical and biological plausibility of this whole thing is far fetched, to put it mildly.

427. # Chrison 10 Jan 2013 at 2:48 am

     nybgrus:
     

     First off, I am surprised this thread fired back up again.

     Don’t be surprised. Multi-Level-Marketers like Ms. King needs exposure. She posted multiple comments only to show she is trying to bring in new suckers to get a payday.

428. # BillSeitzon 10 Jan 2013 at 7:47 am

     This looks like a good thread to request a review of the magnet/depression research, now that the FDA has approved a helmet… http://www.fastcompany.com/3004658/fda-approves-magnetic-helmet-treating-depression

429. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 10 Jan 2013 at 9:52 am

     Dear Tracy, how I haven’t missed your special pleading.

     1) Proving that stable superoxide molecules exist in ASEA (still questionable) doesn’t mean they have a meaningful biological impact.

     2) You still apparently do not realize that testimonials, no matter how detailed, do not matter. The problem is one of denominator. Did you keep detailed testimonials of people who were not miraculously healed? Humans have an innate tendency to remember things that confirm what they already know, and ignore contradictory information. It’s known as confirmation bias. Which is why your testimonials are, and ever will be, worthless.

     3) Irrespective how something is sold, the meaningful question is whether it works. ASEA, like all nutriscams, is taking advantaged of the lowered threshold of proof required of supplements to flog its product without any real evidence it does anything meaningful. The product you sell contains no specific claims, and you are trained very carefully to make no such specific claims, because doing so would classify it as a drug, and your company would be prevented from selling it without proper reserach. Because this would interrupt their license to extract money from the bank accounts of the credulous, they aren’t going to do this.

     4) If it will take “years and decades to FULLY understand the scope of this product” that means your company is selling a product without any proof of efficacy. The two citations in that worthless document you posted were about why hair goes gray and a study of the blood of autistic and neurotypical children. Nothing about ASEA having any effect on either issue.

     5) Your conduct remains unethical.
     a) You are selling your product with no proof of efficacy to desperate populations. This is not hope, it is false hope.
     b) If your product is ineffective, you are simply wasting people’s money (and giving them false hope) simply to enrich yourself and your company.
     c) If your product is effective, you are keeping it out of the hands of millions of sick people. By adopting a MLM approach rather than clinical trials, it is not being used by doctors – a far more effective, widespread and socially sanctioned method of ensuring sick people get treatment.

     So please feel free to leave until you get some real proof, repeating the same tired empty claims is not proving anything.

430. # nybgruson 10 Jan 2013 at 10:56 am

     @gears:

     So again, sorry for my misplaced certainty that the spectrum was meaningless and to those of you whose comments were based on my claiming expertise. In the spirit that skepticism is admitting when you get it wrong, I hope this doesn’t tarnish my credibility too much

     Of course not. This statement, IMHO, encapsulates the truest meaning of skeptic. We are not fool enough to think we will never make mistakes – but we are intellectually honest enough to admit them.

     As for the detection of superoxides, I still think our critique stands. Spin trapping is used in order to keep the superoxide in a superoxide state long enoug for the characteristic spectra to appear. My understanding of DIPPMO spin trapping after a brief read is that the adduct forms and the change in the SO-DIPPMO adduct spectra then becomes characteristic proving that superoxides were previously present in solution. So if the SO is stable and doesn’t need to be trapped or else it would react, then you would be able to detect it without the DIPPMO. The only consideration I can think of (and I don’t know enough about the field in general to be sure this isn’t the case) is that since stable SO is essentially an oxymoron, there may be no other protocols for directly detecting SO via NMR spectra. That would be a valid reason for using this method in the context of “stable” SO. However, that should also make it impossible to distinguish between “stable” SO and any other SO since the adduct formed would be identical regardless.

     At least, as far as I know.

     Anyhow, I’m going to go ahead and move the goalposts and say that even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that ASEA has “stabilized redox molecules in saline solution” it does not follow that ASEA should have any therapeutic benefit whatsoever. To me, the chemical and biological plausibility of this whole thing is far fetched, to put it mildly.

     Thankfully for our integrity, this is not a moving of goalposts.

     We had stated clearly a priori that evidence of the existence of stable SO is merely the first step towards validation of ASEA. The goal post has remained and I still have critique of it. But even if this goalpost is met, we aren’t moving it forward, ASEA has just managed to make it to the next goal post.

     And yes, the biological plausibility is extremely low and is far from established. If the SO is “stable” that means it isn’t likely to react. We know that SO/ROS in vivo is unstable and reacts very rapidly. So if there is a signaling capacity via SO/ROS in vivo it must be based on the reactivity of it. So how is a “stable” molecule supposed to enter the signaling cascade? The only “out” I see is if there is some sort of reversible spin-trapping or other stabilization that delivers the SO to the cells and then somehow disengages and allows it to become unstable again.

     But here is the problem. Proving an effect in medicine is like observing a marathon. You can prove that someone finished the marathon in one of two ways (or both, for even more robust evidence).

     1) You observe that there is a starting line and a finish line. You have no idea what is going on in between but someone crosses the finish line. You can’t say how but you can say for sure that someone finished the marathon.

     2) You can’t see the start or finish line but you can observe the middle part of the race. You can see a runner going through every checkpoint and then disappear very close to the finish. You can’t be certain someone finished the marathon but you can be reasonably confident since you watched them run 99% of it all the way up to the finish line.

     Obviously 1 is better than 2 in isolation, but both together are the best. 2 can be of varying quality. Maybe we only saw a few snapshots of the person running and the last we saw was 1 mile away from the finish line. We can say it is likely, but less certain, that someone finished.

     In the case of ASEA we have nothing of value to satisfy 1 and we have, at best and being extremely generous, very little of 2.

     ASEA needs to either demonstrate robust clinical effect (it hasn’t) or establish the following (at a minimum):

     That “stable” SO/ROS exist as an entity and can be detected (see critique above)
     That SO/ROS in vivo are signaling molecules (very little evidence in very restricted circumstances)
     That SO/ROS in vivo have a significant clinical effect (no evidence outside the very restricted circumstances)
     That “stable” SO/ROS can interact with the in vivo system (no evidence)
     That this interaction can alter the signaling significantly (no evidence)
     That this alteration is beneficial (no evidence)

     So essentially we still have nothing. And of course, the huge strike against ASEA is that they claim it to be a panacea for just about everything. Even if every step I outlined above were true and demonstrated to be so, it still wouldn’t follow that ASEA could possibly have the incrediby disparate physiological effects it claims.

     So don’t worry Gears. No goalpost shifting here. There are just a lot of goalposts to meet for any medical treatment and even if we grant the ASEA folks the first one, that really doesn’t do them all that much good. But such is the reality of medicine. These are complex biological systems we are talking about that are mostly uncharacterized. We know enough to do a lot of amazing things and act rationally, but we don’t know vastly more than we do. This isn’t like physical sciences where the mathematics of it all are so well established that you can go from input to output reliably and not worry about all those steps in the middle. Our only “out” is that we can observe the end rigorously and prove an effect without knowing the steps in the middle. But that is much easier said than done and costs a lot of money to do well. And has ethical consideration to boot.

431. # nybgruson 10 Jan 2013 at 10:59 am

     Oh I should add that for everywhere I said in vivo you can substitute in vitro but that doing so automatically decreases the robustness of the evidence and requires more and smaller steps to be verified to maintain the same level of confidence at the end. This is, for all practical intents, mostly impossible at our current level of technological sophistication, so in vitro must invariably decrease our confidence that the effect is real.

432. # nybgruson 10 Jan 2013 at 11:06 am

     Ok last bits of refinement:

     There could be the possibility that in vivo physiological system utilize “stable” ROS/SO and we have not discovered that yet. I think it is highly unlikely based on what I know about how these systems work and the chemical properties of ROS/SO (put simply signal cascades happen either because a receptor interacts with a ligand [stable/stable] or a chemical reaction cascade triggers downstream effects [stable/unstable]. But there is no known receptor that would interact with an inorganic molecule/atom that is stable except as a cofactor, but that would then change the MOA of ASEA drastically and be unlikely to have any robust effect).

     In the marathon analogy, for 1), if we do not observe the starting line but only the finish, we can be certain an effect happened but not from what. It could have been a runner from the sidelines 1 mile before the finish and have nothing to do with anyone from the starting line. In the case of ASEA if we can’t robustly establish the starting line but find something crossing the finish line, we can’t be sure it was ASEA doing it. This is why highly implausible therapies have equivocal results and small effect sizes. Very robust results would be like seeing a whole bunch of runners cross the finish line and give us significantly more confidence that this is actually what is happening. But still not the best confidence.

433. # TracyKingon 11 Jan 2013 at 3:12 am

     According to this 2001 article http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=15196577, there ARE already published peer-reviewed findings on the saline solution as it existed before the technology was sold to current owner, Verdis Norton. These findings are in the AJIC and APIC, if anyone has free access to these journals I’d love a copy of the conclusions. Again, I’m not suggesting ASEA is a treatment or a cure for any disease, just that my conclusion that the product has legitimacy is more likely than Harriet’s conclusion “it’s just another expensive way to buy salt water.” The wording she used, “multilevel marketing SCHEME,” shows her obvious bias against a decades-old legitimate distribution method that has created more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry (get with the times Ms. Hall or at least try to veil your contempt!)

     And according to this http://www.drugs.com/news/medical-discoveries-inc-engages-strategic-advisor-explore-alternatives-5532.html, “Medical Discoveries, Inc. develops cures for major diseases though its novel oxidative therapy program (“MDI-P”), and in-licensing promising technologies that address some of today’s most serious illnesses. The Company was founded on MDI-P, a novel oxidative therapy that is a stable solution rich in highly reactive hydrogen, chlorine and oxygen chain species. MDI-P has demonstrated potential to work directly on pathogens, or as an enhancer to the immune system.” Again, I’m not making claims, just highlighting that the original company employed solid science, research, investment, patent-protection, testing, and safety studies before its eventual purchase and re-branding. They even did human clinical FDA trials http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/AIDS-Weekly/1995-12-18/12189587217517AW.html which seems like a lot of hoops to jump through in order to achieve a few months of profit on a “salt water” scam.

     Lastly, Harriet said “NOT A SINGLE PLACEBO CONTROLLED STUDY” which is incorrect information, whether she did so with malicious deliberate intent or just flippant oversight, this error needed to be addressed. This video clearly shows that ASEA has one and it was NOT in-house research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Uignb91Rw. And ANY profit-driven company marketing to “the masses,” if they could, would promote favorable independent studies on their product using YouTube, especially if they’re worldwide in 11 countries. It was totally appropriate that I be able to respond in a blog comment of her sham article to point out her error without having to have a Ph.D. or be personally attacked, or be accused of dredging for customers, and given that I gave full disclosure about why I care that she was disseminating false information (because I am an independent associate who paid my $40 associate fee… get informed, it’s not a “big investment” to become a rep!). If I’m wrong, prove it, I’m a big girl, I can take it, but if you just want to trash the MLM industry indiscriminately and make fun of me, and dismiss all supplements blanketly that aren’t in a medical journal and that don’t make claims about a disease, well then, who’s the ill-informed one now?

434. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 11 Jan 2013 at 6:44 am

     An 11 year old press release. A five year old news story. An 18 year old news story. And a youtube video. This is your evidence. And you expect us to be convinced? Three ancient bits of non-research in venues designed to promote and a video on a site with zero fact checking, where anyone can say anything, and we’re supposed to be convinced? Clearly in your time away you have learned nothing. I’m having a hard time veiling my contempt, at this point because I wonder if you have a learning disability.

     Again, I’m not suggesting ASEA is a treatment or a cure for any disease

     Of course you are not, that would open you and the parent company up to legal challenges. No, you are going to stick to vague testimonials and worthless “supports the health” claims, because then you can keep selling it.

     just that my conclusion that the product has legitimacy is more likely than Harriet’s conclusion “it’s just another expensive way to buy salt water.” The wording she used, “multilevel marketing SCHEME,” shows her obvious bias against a decades-old legitimate distribution method that has created more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry (get with the times Ms. Hall or at least try to veil your contempt!)

     You have consistently failed to show any evidence ASEA does anything to affect human health (anecdotes don’t count, I’ll repeat because you still don’t seem to grasp this rather simple point) and you think Dr. Hall is the problem? At least with a MLM company like Amway you’re actually getting soap.

     Again, I’m not making claims, just highlighting that the original company employed solid science, research, investment, patent-protection, testing, and safety studies before its eventual purchase and re-branding. They even did human clinical FDA trials http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/AIDS-Weekly/1995-12-18/12189587217517AW.html which seems like a lot of hoops to jump through in order to achieve a few months of profit on a “salt water” scam.

     a) A news story is not a pubmed citation for a completed clinical trial.

     b) You’re scrupulously not making claims, again because you’ve been trained not to, because that leads to law suits

     c) If there were real proof ASEA did anything, they could sell it with specific claims rather than the vague nonsense you are trained to spew out; they can’t, because there is no proof your expensive salt water does anything.

     If you’ve got an actual published placebo-controlled trial, please link to that – a youtube video where someone claims to have such a trial is, laughably, not the same thing. The sham here is you pretending this is knowledge or evidence.

     Who’s the ill-informed one now? Still you.

435. # Naradon 11 Jan 2013 at 10:44 am

     The wording she used, “multilevel marketing SCHEME,” shows her obvious bias against a decades-old legitimate distribution method that has created more millionaires since 1995 than any other industry

     As the keen observer of human nature that you doubtlessly are, what would you say that recycling the exact same wording for a preposterous assertion shows on your part?

436. # Harriet Hallon 11 Jan 2013 at 12:03 pm

     MLM advocates are lying about the number of millionaires in MLM: http://www.mlmwatch.org/01General/mlmlies.html

     99% of MLM marketers lose money.
     http://www.pinktruth.com/mary-kay-facts/myth-of-mlm-income-opportunity-99-lose-money-in-mlm/

437. # Sialison 11 Jan 2013 at 1:21 pm

     As posted earlier here, I had inquired about obtaining a sample of ASEA water. In return, I received emails from someone using the name Brandon Olson, an ASEA distributor who has an interesting history with the State of Texas Attorney General’s office. Well, I’m still getting those emails, but it seems that Brandon has now shared my email address with some ‘gentlemen’, term used loosely, from overseas. They’re emailing me advertising bogus services, and Brandon has written in their support with an added assurance about them stating,

     “P.S. How does he get the time to make all these videos while on vacation? There must be a superhero lurking in that chiselled Asian body. He did not pay me to say that!

     From: gurusecrets@thefamilyexchange. com
     Sender: kohlskoupons@aweber.com X-Loop: kohlskoupons@aweber.com

     It seems I should write a letter to the Texas Attorney General.

438. # TracyKingon 23 Jan 2013 at 6:09 pm

     I found one of the clinical studies that was published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal: http://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(00)40576-6/abstract, but yeah I guess you’re right, since it’s from year 2000, it’s totally irrelevant. Say what? Some chemotherapy drugs are still in use since the 1980′s, if not earlier, even despite being proven to be unable to cure most cancers after they have metastasized! Man you guys seem impossible to influence, I hardly see how our publication in a mid-tier this year is going to make any difference to you whatsoever, but oh well, can’t say I didn’t at least TRY to give you at least another opinion about whether it’s “just another salt water scam.” And, Harriet, only 1% of people doing network marketing make any money? Wow I didn’t know I was so special.

     Hey Sialis, I met this lady one time who botched people’s faces doing botox so my conclusion is that all people who inject botox are incompetent. And I also remember someone I know being arrested for lottery fraud, and she worked at a bank, so now I know all bankers are crooks. Man, this is easy stuff, isn’t it? Glad everybody and every profession comes pre-packaged with easy-to-read labels, life’s a breeze living this way! So glad I don’t ever have to think for myself again, woohoo!

439. # Naradon 23 Jan 2013 at 6:41 pm

     I found one of the clinical studies that was published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal

     You don’t exactly understand what “top-tier” “medical journal” means, do you? (Nothing against AJIC, but it’s not what you are representing it as.)

440. # The Daveon 23 Jan 2013 at 6:49 pm

     Just looking at the abstract, (which I’m sure is all you did) let me point out some key points that demonstrate why this study does not support the use and sale of ASEA:

     ” in vitro microbicidal activity of MDI-P”
     in vitro is NOT a clinical study. Lots of things show promise in vitro only to be ineffective in vivo

     ” the effect of MDI-P on tissues were studied by using a mouse model.”
     again, not a clinical study. agan lots of things show promise in animal models only to be ineffective in humans

     “may be useful for various sterilization and disinfection applications.”
     suggests use for surfaces and instruments. Nothing suggesting use in (or on) the body. Lysol works great on counter tops, but you shouldn’t ingest it, apply it othalmically, or even gave prolonged skin exposure

     In addition, the abstract says nothing of a control group. If I were doing the study, I would test regular (“untreated”) sterile saline and see if it had the same effect. Saline itself has antimicrobial properties, simply because of the high salt content and the osmotic effect.

     Keep trying.

441. # Naradon 23 Jan 2013 at 7:01 pm

     Perhaps Tracy would settle for trying to peddle ASEA as a surface disinfectant. That should go well.

442. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 23 Jan 2013 at 7:07 pm

     I hear ASEA works especially well as a sanitizer if heated to 212 F or so…

443. # Sialison 23 Jan 2013 at 7:19 pm

     It would work great in a hot tub.

444. # Naradon 23 Jan 2013 at 7:44 pm

     again, not a clinical study. agan lots of things show promise in animal models only to be ineffective in humans

     I get the impression that they were merely testing for toxicity in any event. AJIC appears to be a practical/nursing–oriented version of Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, which is a fine and valuable thing but again not at all what Tracy seems to think it is.

445. # The Daveon 23 Jan 2013 at 8:02 pm

     “I get the impression that they were merely testing for toxicity in any event.”

     Good point. I was trying to make sense of why they would test it in mice and then conclude it might be a good surface/instrument sterilizer. Now it all makes sense.

     But, ya know: one (seemingly) positive study for ASEA’s pre-cursor (described as “low cost”). I’m totes gonna run out and sign up as a distributor…

446. # nybgruson 23 Jan 2013 at 11:52 pm

     The amazingly over the top response from Tracy was a wonder unto itself.

     But it gets better.

     I have institutional access to the full article she posted. Which makes it entirely clear what the study is about. And it in no way, shape, or form could possibly relate to any product or claim Tracy or ASEA have been making.

     This is an article about a surface disinfectant for surfaces:

     Disinfectants, including antiseptics, are commonly used to reduce the numbers of potentially harmful microorganisms on surfaces…Numerous chemical agents are widely used for disinfection of inanimate surfaces, cold sterilization of medical devices such as endoscopes and surgical instruments, and antisepsis of skin.

     Oh, but it gets better. Indeed. Tracy claims that this article is evidence for the efficacy of ASEA as a stablized ROS/RO system?

     MDI-P was generated from injection saline by using an instrument provided by Medical Discoveries, Inc, Layton, Utah. A current of 3 A was applied for 3 minutes by using platinum/titanium-coated steel electrodes…MDI-P was diluted with injection saline to concentrations of 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% and used within 4 minutes of production.

     That some stabilization! Amazing how ASEA ships you (and you use) the product within 4 minutes of production!

     Oh, but really, none of that even matters. Because this study is about killing germs with chemicals that kill germs!. Seriously:

     It contains numerous highly reactive chlorine and oxygen species, including HOCl–1, OCl–1, Cl–1, Cl2, O2–1, and O3.

     Yeah! Those ROS/SO species sure will kill bugs! That’s great! So what does this have to do with all those health claims ASEA makes… err… suggests… {wink}{wink} …? Wait, are they trying to market us a new antibiotic? That would actually be kind of cool… perhaps as an adjunct therapy to treat bacteremic sepsis… or infected wound. The data in this study seem to indicate that it is tolerated quite well intravenously by the mice. But, why would someone who isn’t infected with a nasty bacterium want this stuff?

     ‘Twould seem there’s ’nuffin ‘ere Cappin!

     Oh, and just a few more nails in that coffin:

     The pH of MDI-P immediately after generation ranged from 8.9 to 9.1, averaging 9.0. It decreased gradually by approximately 1 pH unit over 24 hours, but did not change significantly during the time between generation and use

     The absence of significant microbicidal activity after 1 minute of exposure suggests that MDI-P might be very unstable. However, preliminary data (not shown) demonstrate that MDI-P remains active in both undiluted and diluted forms for at least 48 hours after preparation. These results suggest that the loss of microbicidal activity after 1 minute of exposure is associated with the presence of the microorganisms rather than the innate instability of MDI-P. In view of these results, it is interesting that dilution of MDI-P in serum causes only a minimal decrease in antimicrobial activity.

     These results suggest that MDI-P may be useful for the irrigation of wounds and ulcers and for antisepsis of unbroken skin.

     Although further studies are indicated, the results presented here suggest that MDI-P may be useful for disinfection of inanimate surfaces, cold sterilization of medical devices, antisepsis, and irrigation therapy for wounds and ulcers.

     Bazinga!

447. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:19 am

     I’m sorry but you guys are missing the ENTIRE point… I thought we were having a discussion about whether ASEA is just salt water or not? Nobody has to prove that it can treat a disease or boost an immune system or be used in vivo for more than just mice, good Lord step away from the details! Can’t we at least agree that this is more than just salt water based on the 20 years of investigative research that led up to its commercialization as ASEA? And that Harriett did absolutely NO RESEARCH for her article, not even tasting or testing it for herself? As experienced scientists, can’t you just objectively look at this body of evidence, all bias aside, and conclude that it’s an interesting concept worth investigating?

     Here’s an SEC filing http://www.secinfo.com/dmR7p.9b.htm that discusses joint ventures with two pharmaceutical companies, and it was more than just mice, there were bovine and human studies.

     “OTHER RESEARCH EFFORTS. During the last half of 1994 and early
     1995, MDI commenced two separate joint research efforts with two large,
     United States-based pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies. The primary
     focus of these preliminary research efforts is the use of MDI-P to
     remove or inactivate infectious agents in blood-derived products. One
     company is focusing on product applications for humans while the other
     company is focusing on the veterinary market. Studies underway have
     demonstrated killing of the bovine diarrhea virus, a significant viral
     pathogen in cattle, which is also used as a laboratory model for the
     hepatitis virus.”

     Why would “large United States-based pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies” invest time and money in pure salt and water? I’m no scientist but can’t you see what was happening throughout this patent and IND application process and all the safety studies… Scientists develop a hypothesis and test it out and write about it and obtain more funding, they explore which test to perform next, and then consider what’s the next direction, the next application, the next conclusion, it’s expensive trial and error… Think about the logical path this product took in its journey… if it can kill the HIV virus on delicate dental equipment with lots of crevices that normally takes hours to sterilize using other methods, can it kill it in vitro in mice tissue, rabbit tissue, bovine tissue? can it kill it intravenously, can it kill it in humans (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medical+Discoveries+appoints+African-American+Advisory+Board+to…-a017816154)? Hey if it can kill HIV, can it kill parasites, fungi, MRSA, candida? What else can it do (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13655940_ITM, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-21472383_ITM)? We’d better test for tissue morbidity, toxicity, especially the delicate endothelial cells in the lungs/eyes, why isn’t there a lethal dose on this stuff? Crap we need to find out WHY this solution is working so well, what the heck is it really? And has anybody noticed that our compounds look strikingly similar to what all those other researchers all around the world are writing about in 100+ new published articles per month that sometimes took a minimum of 2+ years to complete… you know the testing they are doing about molecules that are inside all living cells, I think they’re called “redox signaling molecules” or something like that? What’s the best application for this stuff IF we pursue drug approval with the FDA? And can we beat the other countries and big pharma to the punch? And can we find investors to work with us until we figure this out? Holy crap, we’re out of money and our incompetent management has mis-valued our preferred stock, now what are we going to do?! Darn it, now we’re up for sale, right when things were getting interesting…

     Regarding in vitro vs. in vivo… my goodness, the story doesn’t end on that one AJIC article! The story continues… just keep reading further down the SEC filing… “The U.S. PTO has granted a patent to the Company for the IN VIVO use of electrically hydrolyzed salines as microbicides and the treatment of multiple sclerosis and cardiomyopathy.” And then there’s THIS SEC filing: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/748790/000089161802001588/f80453e10ksb40.txt. And this paper on in vivo HIV: http://www.aegis.org/DisplayContent/?SectionID=267364

     Blah blah blah… all I’m trying to prove here is that it’s MORE THAN JUST SALT WATER, you don’t have to admit ANY MORE THAN THAT, set your pride aside and just open your eyes here! This is a scientific discovery that is promising, PERIOD, can’t you just say that? It’s going to be interesting to follow it over the next 3-5 years. That’s all. In fact, here’s the latest direction they are taking, ASEA might increase metabolism and combat obesity: http://www.salisburypost.com/article/20130120/SP01/130129973/?fb_comment_id=fbc_401053669981974_2498872_402337079853633#f2148efec. I can tell you the direction I’D like to see them take… everybody I know has way less bruising (IF ANY AT ALL, even with physical contact sports!) and less CELLULITE, why is that? I honestly do not know, is it anecdotal? Maybe! But if they prove a reason for why it works for those applications, is that even marketable? Can we promote that without making any claims? We need to find an application that is easily understood and observable by MOST people, and still be compliant with the U.S. regulatory environment. Is that likely to happen? I hope so. Is it a sure thing? NOTHING is a sure thing! That’s where entrepreneurs come in, and financial opportunity for those who have vision. There are those who DENY that the escalator works because they refuse to walk out in front of it and watch it work, there are those who are too scared to ride it because it looks dangerous, and then there are those who jump on it, without needing to understand WHY or HOW it works, and ride it all the way to the top! They might get a toe stuck in a crease or an arm ripped off (that’s what it feels like anyway to be arguing with you people who are so rude and dismissive), but they survive and they were first.

     At some point, you’re going to have to question if all this evidence could really just be some elaborate money-making pyramid scheme, 20+ years in the making, or a journey of discovery with the ending yet to be written? If I’M right, you’re jeopardizing your health by not protecting it as best you can, and I’m a pioneer who recognized it before “the masses” which presents a financial opportunity (not without risk but nothing ventured nothing gained). If YOU’RE right, then it will fizzle out and run its course, and you all just wasted a lot of time making fun of me. Where are the risk takers, the optimists, the intellectually curious, the people willing to hope? Either prove me wrong or quit talking. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ME WRONG, as scientists, isn’t that your job? YOU keep saying where’s MY evidence, WHERE’S YOURS?

448. # Naradon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:27 am

     Wait, are they trying to market us a new antibiotic? That would actually be kind of cool…

     Givent that it’s described as “broad spectrum,” I suppose they could go with “ASEA: Coming to Wipe Out Your Gut Flora” as a new slogan.

449. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:58 am

     Bazinga? Ha ha, thanks nybgrus, you just told the story of ASEA you dim wit! Have you not watched ANY company videos? Verdis bought the technology in unstabilized form. He brought in Dr. Samuelson who spent two years working with a team and university researchers figuring out how to stabilize it which is the bigger breakthrough than learning how to make it. In fact other countries already do know how to make it, but not stabilize it, therefore it’s not commercializable. The first discovery was MAKING it which is MDI-P’s contribution, but the much greater discovery was keeping it “ON” by allowing two opposite charges to exist inside a bottle without neutralizing. See starting at minute 4:53 of this company video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8IfaW-38yE. HA HA HA HA!

     This is how Dr. Samuelson explained his involvement and the stabilization discovery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzjK8ilccfg

     And this is my FAVORITE video of him, gives me chills: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z58yvehhHrI, such a humble guy, I see that is an emotion that is lost on you! Hysterical… smug much?! Catch up with me here nybgrus, I think you’re starting to see the light!

450. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 1:12 am

     Hey Dave, they were testing for toxicity because they wanted to use it in human trials, duh! http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Good+News+for+Medical+Discoveries,+Inc.+From+Latest+Toxicological…-a081516525. Not as a surface cleaner. Get it now? I thought you guys were insightful scientists? Is your emotion clouding your judgment?

451. # Naradon 24 Jan 2013 at 1:16 am

     Not as a surface cleaner. Get it now?

     Yes. You can’t read.

452. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 1:21 am

     Hey nybgrus, can you use your institutional access to help me find out more about these studies?

     http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Law-and-Health-Weekly/2004-09-18/091320043331365LH.html

     http://business.highbeam.com/436989/article-1G1-117320524/mdi-p-medical-discoveries-preclinical-data

     I’d like to see if these were in vivo for Dave, I think I can win him over if that’s all he needs to see, right? Snort.

453. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 1:29 am

     You can see MDI-P’s dilemma in the “Overview” — so promising but $20m down and still WAY more needed with no surety… http://www.investorscopes.com/MEDICAL-DISCOVERIES-INC/10QSB/6118249.aspx. If this were a novel, it’d be riveting!

454. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 1:43 am

     Why are all my comments held up in moderation? Hmmm… Harriet are you up late again? No sensoring now, call a spade a spade, nobody’s perfect… I know you see a lot of MLM fraud so no one could blame you for trying to skate by without doing your homework on this one, after all… who’d have thunk it, huh? A LEGITIMATE MLM company?! Is that even possible?! It is now. And can I just say it for you?… IT’S ABOUT TIME! I agree with you, there’s a LOT of trash out there, but give us our due! ASEA is NOT a salt water scam, and humble pie will taste better today than if you wait… a retraction article admitting your negligence to do due diligence would be a nice gesture.

455. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 2:21 am

     What new evidence do you think you’ve presented here that would prompt Dr. Hall to retract the original post? Why don’t we all wait for the ground-breaking peer-reviewed RCT paper you’ve promised us this April?

     How have you shown us you’re involved in a legitimate MLM company?

     That Investorscopes link you provided is a subscription-only site. I’m not signing up to read it. Either provide the information yourself or provide a link we can read.

     Those other two studies you asked nygbus to check are mouse studies. They’re both indicated as such in the links you provided.

     And stop being so paranoid: all posts with links are moderated. It prevents spam links to garbage websites selling nonsense.

456. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 2:26 am

     If this were a novel, it’d be riveting!

     No it wouldn’t. I can tell you how the story ends already.

457. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 2:37 am

     That Free Library link Tracy provided leads to nothing more than a press release from the company itself. From 2002.

     Here’s the lead:

     SALT LAKE CITY — Medical Discoveries Inc. (BULLETIN BOARD: MLSC) announces that test results from WIL Research Laboratories have indicated that MDI-P, the company’s proprietary AIDS drug, produced no systemic toxicity in laboratory animal tests used to assess potential problems for human application.

     It was called an AIDS drug back then?

458. # nybgruson 24 Jan 2013 at 8:06 am

     The one you have to sign up for is a financial statement about the company to the SEC. You actually can read it – just scroll up and down and read around the “sign up” pop-up. It is nothing exciting – just ledgers for the year 2006. Says nothing of interest to me (though I am not a financial expert).

     The second two I do not have institutional access to. But after how incredibly, utterly, laughably horribly my instutional access turned out for you last time, I really think you should be glad I don’t.

     I mean, do you seriously not realize how incredibly bankrupt you are when you very snottily put forth a study that not only demonstrates absolutely nothing to support your claims, but actually is evidence against at least some of your claims? It is pathetically obvious that you are scrambling to throw anything up in some delusional hope that it will somehow stick and we will be converts and support ASEA. My only guess is because you are actually losing your shirt in this MLM scheme and desparately need to rationalize and hopefully turn a profit at some point.

     In any event, I’d honestly suggest just giving up here and then packing up your bags with ASEA and dropping them before you get in even deeper. And that is genuine and friendly advice.

459. # Sialison 24 Jan 2013 at 8:20 am

     @Dr. Hall, I would just like to thank you again for writing this blog post on ASEA. The information contained in this post, as well as your previous post on ASEA, serves as an excellent learning tool to teach people the thought processes on how to dissect and analyze product claims. I also appreciate the many comments by people who are willing to spend their time to help readers understand these misleading claims.

460. # The Daveon 24 Jan 2013 at 10:20 am

     “I think I can win him over if that’s all he needs to see, right?”

     Boy, wouldn’t that be great if 1 in vivo study was needed to “win me over”. Have you not understood the many times we have tried to explain the characteristics of a valid study? Here’s a hint: “in vivo”, while important, is not the only thing.

     But, hey, I could use a little extra cash. Can you guarantee I’ll make money if I become a distributor? lol

461. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 24 Jan 2013 at 11:27 am

     I found one of the clinical studies that was published in a top-tier peer-reviewed medical journal

     As Dr. Gorski once said, you can sprinkle nearly anything on a petri dish and kill bacteria. Humans aren’t petri dishes. At best, this indicates you could use it to clean glassware. A far cry from being the cure to all diseases. Not to mention, real drugs genuinely used in vitro or in vivo must go through far more testing than one journal article. The FDA requires no less than two clinical trials to approve a medication for use in humans, and even authorizing those clinical trials requires at least two applications in a successful animal model. And “clinical trial” itself is not a single thing, there are clinical trials for safety before efficacy is tested. I’m not sure why you think one article in a journal is sufficient to convince us that ASEA magically cures, well, everything.

     Some chemotherapy drugs are still in use since the 1980′s if not earlier, even despite being proven to be unable to cure most cancers after they have metastasized!

     Yes, because it has been consistently demonstrated that they are effective at killing cancerous tissues in vivo, not in stemware. You need a [citation needed] tag on your final clause, and in particular must realize that chemotherapy tends to be quite cancer-specific. They don’t use the same treatment for brain cancer that they use for blood cancer. “Cancer” is not a unitary phenomenon, try reading The Emperor of all Maladies.

     So glad I don’t ever have to think for myself again,

     Well, you’re certainly doing a great job letting your company do your thinking for you in this regard.

     I’m sorry but you guys are missing the ENTIRE point… I thought we were having a discussion about whether ASEA is just salt water or not?Not really, you’re Gish galloping all over the place and we’re methodically pointing out the flaws in your evidence. It’s easy to make claims, it’s hard to make well-substantiated claims that are backed by evidence, and it’s even harder (apparently particularly in your case) to understand what makes for good evidence.

     Incidentally, if they tested a powerful cyanide derivative on bacteria in a petri dish and found it killed them all, would you immediately swallow it? Just wondering.

     And that Harriett did absolutely NO RESEARCH for her article, not even tasting or testing it for herself? As experienced scientists, can’t you just objectively look at this body of evidence, all bias aside, and conclude that it’s an interesting concept worth investigating?

     The onus is on the claimant, not the skeptic. Anyone can make any claim, it’s up to that person to demonstrate that their claim is substantive. SEC filings don’t count.

     Also, not a scientist, I’m a skeptic.

     Final point – there might be enough evidence to suggest this is an interesting concept worth investigating. Unfortunately you are not doing this. You are selling it as a form of treatment.

462. # Scotton 24 Jan 2013 at 11:34 am

     It’s also worth noting that the “try it yourself” gambit fails horribly, since individual experience is so extremely fallible and subject to so many confounders. There’s a reason we need careful clinical trials to answer these questions. If you could “try it yourself” and get reliable answers, then nobody would bother doing the trials. The investigators aren’t exactly doing it for fun!

463. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 24 Jan 2013 at 11:38 am

     Bah, SBM needs a comments preview function.

     In fact, here’s the latest direction they are taking, ASEA might increase metabolism and combat obesity (snip) I can tell you the direction I’D like to see them take… everybody I know has way less bruising (IF ANY AT ALL, even with physical contact sports!) and less CELLULITE, why is that? I honestly do not know, is it anecdotal?

     By the FSM, is there anything your magic salt water can’t do?

     Where are the risk takers, the optimists, the intellectually curious, the people willing to hope?

     I’ve two guesses:

     - selling ASEA apparently, and
     - losing money on shady business ventures

     Making money is generally difficult, or requires a large amount of dishonesty. If it were so easy, everybody would be rich. For every genuine opportunity, there are many, many more liars, scammers or promising but ultimately fruitless avenues that do nothing but drain resources.

     such a humble guy

     I’d rather he were an arrogant but honest researcher who published in peer reviewed journals instead of spending his time making youtube videos.

     @ The Dave:

     But, hey, I could use a little extra cash. Can you guarantee I’ll make money if I become a distributor?

     You can make money at nearly anything with persistence and a complete lack of ethics. But it’ll require taking advantage of the credulous. If you’re very, very lucky though, you’ll convince some poor True Believer(TM) who will then do the heavy lifting, misrepresentation and testimonials for you. Better yet, take the lessons you learned here and start your own structure-function-based MLM company. Get in on the ground floor and you can win big!

464. # The Daveon 24 Jan 2013 at 11:43 am

     Today’s post over on the Skeptical OB explains really well why reading just the abstract is insufficient to support your claim. The link is here:
     http://www.skepticalob.com/2013/01/why-reading-the-abstract-of-a-scientific-paper-isnt-enough.html

     At the beginning, she compares abstracts to the blurbs on the back covers of novels. If you just read the blurb and not the book itself, you will look like a fool when trying to discuss it with others that have read the book.

     There’s a reason why scientific journals publish entire papers, not just abstracts and that reason goes to the heart of what a scientific paper is. The publication of a scientific paper is not the end of the discussion; it is merely the beginning. Just because a paper is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal does NOT mean that the paper is true. It merely means that the authors’ data and conclusions are worthy of being included in the discussion. The entire paper is presented for the specific purpose of allowing the readers who have appropriate background and knowledge of statistics to decide for themselves whether the authors’ claims are true.

     and she concludes by saying:

     Quoting a scientific abstract of a paper you have not read is not proof of anything other than the fact that you don’t understand science. If you wish to be taken seriously in any debate about homebirth, you MUST read, understand and analyze the paper itself. Anything else is the equivalent of claiming that a book is great because that’s what it says on the cover.

465. # Harriet Hallon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:10 pm

     “And that Harriett did absolutely NO RESEARCH for her article, not even tasting or testing it for herself?”

     This is just hilarious! At risk of feeding the troll, I can’t help but comment. This started my morning out with a laugh.

     What would it taste like? What difference does that make?

     I wonder, if I wanted to write about hysterectomies, would I have first to have one myself to test it? Would that prevent men from ever writing about female conditions?

     She mentions chemotherapy – has she tried it for herself?
     And HER “research” doesn’t even extend to noticing that the studies she cites don’t support her claims or even that my name is spelled with one t.

     Brainwashed thinking is really sad, but sometimes it has value as a teaching opportunity for others and as comic relief.

466. # The Daveon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:33 pm

     ” I thought you guys were insightful scientists?”

     I’m actually a lowly 1st year pharmacy student that, admittedly, doesn’t have nearly as much experience in research as a lot of other’s on this site. However, I try to follow the scientific process as best I can and attempt to remain humble enough to admit when I don’t know something and/or when I am wrong about it. Which, if you think about it, is the essence of science and scientific-thinking. Have you demonstrated the same about yourself?

467. # PernilleNon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:44 pm

     I’ve written about Asea in my blog http://perpelle.wordpress.com/ (in Norwegian, sorry), and have had several emails from people who have become really sick after drinking ASEA’s magic water: nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, high blood pressure, headaches, diarrhea, fatigue …
     When it comes to taste, they say it tastes like a swimmingpool. That stands to reason, since there is reason to believe that the chlorine in is the form of chlorites.

     I also get some angry emails from people who think Asea is wonderful, and accusing me of poor research, not having tried it myself etc etc. I reply sweetly along these lines: “Since you obviously know much more about Asea than I do, can you please tell me what it really contains, and in what concentration?”. Interestingly, not one of them have answered. I have also asked several retailers about the exact ingredients. Not one of them is able to declare the contents of the supplement they sell. Or, they say it contains “redox-signalling molecules”. When I asked which ones, they clam up. I’m not sure if that is because they can’t answer, won’t answer or simply don’t understand the question.

468. # The Daveon 24 Jan 2013 at 12:55 pm

     “I’m not sure if that is because they can’t answer, won’t answer or simply don’t understand the question.”

     My guess is “all of the above”

469. # TracyKingon 24 Jan 2013 at 3:15 pm

     Wow Dave, that’s why I said “Snort” afterwards, it was sarcastic, get it? NOTHING would EVER be enough for you because your mind is already made up, absolutely NOTHING, not a study on mice, not a study on people, not a study on diseases, not patents, not decades of exploratory evidence and research, not a double-blind placebo-controlled independent third party randomized crossover study like the one we ALREADY did with the Human Performance Laboratory at the NC Research Campus, not trying the product… the ONLY thing will be 80 years of compounded research, too bad you will be dead by then. R u really that humorless that you did not pick up on sarcasm? WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Hey PernilleN, signaling is with one L (since Harriett equates alternate spellings of names to be somehow relevant, I’m going to assume the same regarding your knowledge on a complicated subject). And yes I will be using 2 L’s from now on for the sheer purpose that now I see that it annoys her. Life is full of small joys.

     nybgrus, that peer-reviewed published study most certainly did NOT provide evidence against my claims that ASEA is more than just salt water! Are you insane? I’m not trying to make any claims that it does anything, I WILL if we ever get past this first hurdle that it’s more than salt water, but I can’t even get you to meet me half-way on THAT?! LOL! How will I ever have a serious discussion with you about metabolites, VO2Max, ventilatory threshhold, glutathione, SOD, catalase, redox signaling, superoxides, safety studies… if we can’t even agree that it satisfies a simple placebo test after MONTHS of discussions? Hilarious to think I would even TRY at this point!!! First things first. Even after showing you test after test that PROVE that the predecessor product had significant differences from salt water that led to $20m in research done world-wide, that it is safe and non-toxic, that it is beneficial to all life forms. The conclusions of the study were OVERWHELMINGLY positive AND WARRANTED FURTHER STUDY, what more could you want from an initial study?

     Using Harrett’s logic, PernilleN, do I need to know WHY hysterectomies work in order to benefit from one? If you need specific information, and you seek it, it is MOST CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO YOU, you can get ALL your questions answered. Don’t be lazy and expect someone else to do the work for you, do it yourself. Contact Dr. Gary Samuelson at 801-973-7499, he returns calls on Mondays and Tuesdays to those who initiate the request. You have to want to know, you obviously do NOT. Shame though, I’d love for you to have a one-on-one conversation with him and report back on here. Come on, be the big man, save the day and show us how smart you are, as a lover of truth! Take the time. But I can tell you the “ingredients” are EXACTLY as listed on the bottle: salt and water, it’s not an ingredients-based product, the intellectual property is in the patented PROCESS whereby the water is electrolyzed, recombined, and stabilized in balanced form so that it contains redox signaling molecules inside the bottle that are identical to those found in and around living cells, as proven by various methods of testing. Redox signaling molecules, formerly thought to be “exhaust” from the energy-making process, have now been determined to be integral communicators of the immune system… the “smoke” from the “house” that tells us if it’s “on fire” and in need of repair/replacement. I would not expect a scientist of your caliber to take my word for it, study up my friend! Study, study, study!

     Every single bit of information I have provided herein has been from MY OWN INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS, ASEA has not provided anything to me beyond my being able to read their safety studies at http://www.asea.net and surmise the name of the predecessor company, everything else was just googling on my own. Anyone could do it. WHY would I do that? BECAUSE I WAS A SKEPTIC MYSELF! I wanted to prove them wrong and be writing on this blog right along with you making fun and feeling sorry for the naivety of well-meaning people, the power of the mind to heal, the placebo effect, pseudo-science, the lure of a greed… but the more I searched and questioned and listened and observed, the more convinced I became… and a skeptic convinced is a skeptic converted. And I didn’t stop at MDI-P, I researched Verdis, Jim Pack, redox signaling, I called the names on the prospectuses when it was a publicly traded stock! I researched network marketing, perused patent applications, investigated the field leaders of the company and the doctors on the advisory board, I even researched mormonism! Never condemn or defend something you haven’t fully investigated ON YOUR OWN! It will come back to bite you! DO IT, do it, do it, would love to see what YOU find, you might look in places I didn’t know to look… BRING IT!!! For better or worse, I am a student of LIFE, I am a truth-seeker with no bias about what I’m going to find, TRUTH is my only criteria!!!!!!!!!!!

     TO REITERATE, NONE OF YOU have provided ANY EVIDENCE that this company has ill intent, has a product that does not perform as stated, or that the underlying science is NOT valid. NO EVIDENCE! Surely you cannot expect me to just take YOUR word for it? That’s not in my nature! And believe me, if you all had real names on here… I’D BE INVESTIGATING YOU AS WELL, your motives, your experience, your track record of success. And Harriett has plenty to be concerned about regarding her ability to pass judgment on ANYTHING… http://www.blindspotmapping.com/hariett_hall_syndrome.html. She NEVER admits it when she’s wrong or mistaken, she is BLIND to her own shortcomings, she just trudges on in her sticky stinky mess picking up sheeple on her back as she goes. She reverts to childish name-calling instead of relying on “science-based” arguments, ironic isn’t it, given her forum?

470. # Harriet Hallon 24 Jan 2013 at 3:27 pm

     Wow. Just wow.

471. # The Daveon 24 Jan 2013 at 3:34 pm

     “that it is beneficial to all life forms.”

     tell that to the bacteria it was effective in sterilizing against.

     (now, that’s humor. )

472. # Naradon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:02 pm

     I am a student of LIFE, I am a truth-seeker with no bias about what I’m going to find, TRUTH is my only criteria!!!!!!!!!!!

     I take it this is why you petulantly doubled down when it was pointed out that the AJIC paper didn’t show what you thought it did.

473. # Naradon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:04 pm

     Hey PernilleN, signaling is with one L (since Harriett equates alternate spellings of names to be somehow relevant, I’m going to assume the same regarding your knowledge on a complicated subject).

     Could somebody point me to what this insane babbling refers to?

474. # Scotton 24 Jan 2013 at 4:08 pm

     The sheer lunatic pettiness of deliberately misspelling someone’s name just to be annoying, combined with the gall and arrogance to not realize that British and American English spell signaling/signalling differently, are quite amusing in the context of such a rant.

     I also find it hilarious that, after so long, Tracy doesn’t get that some inconclusive preliminary evidence does NOT constitute any basis on which to sell a product. It is the seller’s obligation to show that it works, not the victim’s obligation to show that it does not – and selling it without that evidence is prima facie evidence of ill intent. Or at a minimum, negligence.

475. # Robbon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:20 pm

     Don’t stop! I’m only half finished my bag of popcorn!
     It’s quite a transformation that Tracy has gone through in this thread considering she started with lines like:
     “Harriet, thanks for your article and I appreciate that there is a forum available for informed discussion of this significant breakthrough.”

476. # PernilleNon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:29 pm

     Dear Tracy,

     I’m infinitely sorry and ashamed that I misspelled an English word. Most English speakers do allow foreigners a little lenience when it comes to spelling and grammar, but if you think this proves I’m an amateur at everything else, you’re free to do so.
     (I promise not to laugh at you when you try writing in a foreign language. How’s your Norwegian?)

     Pleasantries aside: I would like to ask you the question I ask the other proponents of ASEA: Since you obviously know much more about Asea than I do, can you please tell me what it really contains, and in what concentration? NB “16 types of signaling molecules” is not an adequate answer.

     And since you mention MDI-P, do you know whether ASEA is the same thing?

     Regards
     Pernille Nylehn
     Norway

477. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:31 pm

     I’ll let everyone take care of all the science nonsense in Tracy’s post. I want to get pedantic.

     Hey Tracy,

     The U.S. is not the center of the universe, spelling-wise. In my country and several others (which are older than your U.S.A.) we double up the “L” in words like signalling, cancelling and travelling. We also add a “u” in words like neighbour and honour.

     It would be nice if you showed some professional respect and referred to our blog host as Dr. Hall, rather than using her first name like you’re best buds and then, acting even more juvenile, you deliberately misspell her name to get het goat. Real mature.

     You expect us to care what a butthurt chiropractor has to say about Dr. Hall? Oh yeah, chiropractors sell your magic salt water and are some of your best spokesholes. Just reinforces what we think about your salt water. Chiropractors also sell homeopathy, BodyTalk, CST, reflexology and a truckload of other quackery. They are anti-science, anti-vaccine and anti-medicine. (If ASEA works as well as Tracey claims, why would anyone even need a chiropractor? But that’s another story…)

     tracey, why don’t you just go away and annoy your friends and colleagues to buy your salt water. Impress your upline by showing them this blog as proof you’re out there “doing something”. Come back in April with your mystical, magical scientific paper you keep promising us and then we can re-open the conversation.

478. # Sialison 24 Jan 2013 at 4:33 pm

     WOW! Thanks Tracy, seriously, I needed to read that. You have sufficiently lit a ‘fire’ under my a**, enough for me to now make it my mission in life to combat such arrogant and destructive quackery. YOU try looking at a cancer patient who has been misled a bill of bogus goods from an ASEA-selling physician or salesperson such as yourself. Patients desperate for a cure, willing to try almost anything so they can spend more time in this world with their spouse and children. Those independent sales reps like yourself are exploiting desperate vulnerable people. Everyone reading these statements and patiently responding to you time and time again is keenly aware of this fact. Sad you can’t acknowledge your harmful behavior.

479. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:42 pm

     Scott: I didn’t mean to echo your post about alternate spellings and deliberate juvenile misspellings of names. I only saw your post after I hit “Submit”. (And yes, I deliberately misspelled Tracy’s name in my post a couple of times to lower myself to her kindergarten level.

     Robb: Yes, she gets more belligerent, hostile, disrespectful and hysterical as she gets more desperate to convince us of something. I suspect her sale quotas are far below what her overlords expect at the end of each month so she thinks dragging up yet another useless paper or news release from the company might drum up some sales.

     Narad: Does Tracy remind you of another tri-named poster over on Orac’s blog? Someone who pops up frequently to support a quack and keeps posting the same junk links that he either hasn’t read, couldn’t understand or don’t say anywhere what he thinks it does? And uses juvenile insults? and keeps yelling that the truth will come out about his hero?

480. # The Daveon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:47 pm

     Tracey:

     You’re my hero, Traci. Hey, everyone, I wanna be just like Traicee.

     Did you hear that, Trasie? I proclaimed it to everyone that you, Trazy, are my hero.

     Tre’-zee, Can you teach me everything you know about commenting online? You’re so cool, Trasee.

     (man, its difficult keeping that up… yes, I’ve just become a troll. Fight fire with fire. Right, Traycey?)

481. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 4:59 pm

     The Dave,

     How about Traighsea?

482. # Chrison 24 Jan 2013 at 5:11 pm

     Tray C ? Or Trey Sea?

483. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 5:16 pm

     Since she’s just selling salt (sea) water, may I propose a bilingual (French/English) version:

     Très Sea

484. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 24 Jan 2013 at 5:23 pm

     Sialis,

     Despite all the frivolity here, you really hit the nail on the head. You summed up exactly what got me interested in the world of quackery, Burzynski and other cancer quacks specifically. I hate to see desperate, vulnerable people exploited, lied to and robbed by charlatans offering false hope and nostrums.

     Since Tracy has already “hinted” that ASEA works for cancer, that puts her and her business in the same category as Burzynski, Simoncini, Robert O. Young, John of God, the people selling MMS, black salve, Cancell and Mannatech.

     A homeopath posted on Natural News this week that he had a homeoquackic remedy for mesothelioma. Other homeoquacks claim cures for malaria and AIDS. All these people have to be stopped.

485. # nybgruson 24 Jan 2013 at 5:30 pm

     ROFLcopter!

     Though one post by TheDave was quite nice – thanks for the link to the OB blog. As you may have noticed I am keenly aware of the utility of actually reading an article beyond the abstract. Sadly, many folks – med students included – don’t even read the abstract. They read the news headline about the abstract. I’ve called out a number of my colleagues when they try to pull such shenanigans. I’ve been more disliked than liked for it, no matter what tack I take. Though I have managed to garner a few friends and converts in the process.

486. # Quillon 24 Jan 2013 at 5:31 pm

     I am astonished this thread has continued, flabbergasted at what I read and yet oddly convinced, based solely on the evidence presented by the ocean of moral turpitude that is Très Sea, of several things: Très Sea is definitely in need of a new conservator; Très Sea also likes to shout while using punctuation like a drunken sailor uses the streets for urinals; and ASEA is salt water dearly and fraudulently sold.

487. # pmoranon 24 Jan 2013 at 5:52 pm

     Tracy, all we can do is warn you that you are being snowed by experts. Your confidence in your own ability to evaluate complex scientific material is being used against you. You will probably make money for a while, but you will make some people very unhappy when they realize they have been dudded.

488. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 24 Jan 2013 at 6:45 pm

     Wow Dave, that’s why I said “Snort” afterwards, it was sarcastic, get it? NOTHING would EVER be enough for you because your mind is already made up, absolutely NOTHING, not a study on mice, not a study on people, not a study on diseases, not patents, not decades of exploratory evidence and research, not a double-blind placebo-controlled independent third party randomized crossover study like the one we ALREADY did with the Human Performance Laboratory at the NC Research Campus, not trying the product… the ONLY thing will be 80 years of compounded research, too bad you will be dead by then. R u really that humorless that you did not pick up on sarcasm?

     1) Our minds are not made up, we are merely pointing out there’s no reason to believe salt water, however prepared, can cure all diseases; extreme claims require convincing evidence
     2) You’re criticizing us for not picking up on sarcasm on the internet, a text-based medium that invented smiley faces because it’s difficult to convey emotion? Yes, how stupid and humourless we are
     3) You’ve made such unscientific claims before, it’s not difficult to believe you are continuing down yet the same road for the umpteenth time.

     And yes I will be using 2 L’s from now on for the sheer purpose that now I see that it annoys her. Life is full of small joys.

     My, how petty.

     The conclusions of the study were OVERWHELMINGLY positive AND WARRANTED FURTHER STUDY, what more could you want from an initial study?

     Considering the claims you are making and the fact that you are selling this product as something that can cure disease, what we want is randomized, controlled trials on humans with statistically significant results. As we’ve said before.

     Using Harrett’s logic, PernilleN, do I need to know WHY hysterectomies work in order to benefit from one?

     The difference being a) prior probability and b) when a body part is cancerous and you remove it, the results are pretty inarguable. Salt water has neither of these things. You’ve got vague, untestable claims and anecdotes about something that really shouldn’t work.

     If you need specific information, and you seek it, it is MOST CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO YOU, you can get ALL your questions answered. Don’t be lazy and expect someone else to do the work for you, do it yourself. Contact Dr. Gary Samuelson at 801-973-7499, he returns calls on Mondays and Tuesdays to those who initiate the request.

     Heh, funny, I was thinking the same thing about you (not sarcasm). As said many times before, personal testimonials are not enough, independent, peer-reviewed journal articles are. The exact same thing we ask for before pharmaceuticals are approved. Why would we waste our time talking to a nuclear physicist who will just talk to us, when what we want and need are journal articles? Asking for weblinks to pubmed is hardly onerous, you are just frustrated because you don’t have them and we keep pointing this out.

     I can tell you the “ingredients” are EXACTLY as listed on the bottle: salt and water, it’s not an ingredients-based product, the intellectual property is in the unproven patented PROCESS whereby the water is electrolyzed, recombined, and stabilized in balanced form and sold for a massive profit without proof of efficacy so that it contains redox signaling molecules inside the bottle that are identical to those found in and around living cells, as proven by various methods of testing that are not replicated or reported in peer reviewed literature

     Fixed that for you.

     I would not expect a scientist of your caliber to take my word for it, study up my friend!

     Why waste time on an improbable avenue of research? Also, I think you mean “research”, since there’s nothing to “study” beyond press releases and youtube videos.

     Every single bit of useless information I have provided herein has been the worthless result from MY OWN INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS hampered by my failure to understand the scientific process, ASEA has not provided anything to me or anyone else beyond my being able to read their worthless safety studies at http://www.asea.net and surmise the name of the predecessor company, everything else was just googling on my own and I think google is the same thing as pubmed. Anyone could do it. WHY would I do that? BECAUSE I pretended I WAS A SKEPTIC MYSELF without actually understanding what it meant and also because I was selling the stuff!

     Fixed that for you too.

     I wanted to prove them wrong and be writing on this blog right along with you making fun and feeling sorry for the naivety of well-meaning people, the power of the mind to heal, the placebo effect, pseudo-science, the lure of a greed

     Truly were your efforts worth of failblog.

     For better or worse, I am a student of LIFE

     Very different from being an actual student by the way. Life does not lend itself to double-blinded studies, it’s actually quite hard to ensure adequate randomization and blinding.

     TO REITERATE, NONE OF YOU have provided ANY EVIDENCE that this company has ill intent, has a product that does not perform as stated, or that the underlying science is NOT valid

     As said before, the onus is on the claimant – it’s up to you to prove your fancy saltwater is magic. We have merely pointed out that your claims, evidence and assertions merit using fancy salt water to treat anything.

     Nice hissy fit by the way. You might want to lay off the salt water though, it raises blood pressure and you already kind sound like you’re close to stroking out. Way to double-down by the way, when you can’t refute someone’s point, a frothing rant is definitely the way to go.

     This is obviously causing you significant stress. Maybe just stop checking the comments. Maybe stop commenting. Maybe take a course on research methodologies.

489. # Naradon 24 Jan 2013 at 7:39 pm

     Why would we waste our time talking to a nuclear physicist who will just talk to us, when what we want and need are journal articles?

     Again, a radiology tech who happens to have completed a physics Ph.D.

490. # Naradon 24 Jan 2013 at 7:47 pm

     Narad: Does Tracy remind you of another tri-named poster over on Orac’s blog?

     I’m afraid Tracy’s prose is still comprehensible.

491. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 24 Jan 2013 at 8:39 pm

     Heh, who hear likes despair.com?

     Some people should just quit already.

492. # Harriet Hallon 24 Jan 2013 at 9:14 pm

     Have a little compassion, folks. We are seeing a sad example of what happens when a “true believer’s” beliefs have been challenged to the point that they are beginning to doubt themselves. They can only lash out in a last desperate attempt to convince themselves that they are really right, and quite often they succeed in reinforcing the delusion. It’s painful to watch, sort of like a soldier in the trenches who is out of ammunition and persists in clicking the trigger.

493. # SkepticWolfon 25 Jan 2013 at 10:11 am

     Clearly no amount of logical reasoning or requests for solid evidence are going to work here. Like Harriet says, this is a “true believer.” So I think the important question this raises is this:

     How to we (skeptics, SBMers, etc) get through to someone like this? Appeal to reality doesn’t work, this is emotional at this point. Reality won’t trump personal investment. Sometimes it doesn’t trump financial investment either. What will work?

     It’s possible that nothing will work in the comments on an internet blog. This may be a lost cause. Taking a wider view of “true believers in general” might be to big a question. But speaking of things in a SBM context, what do I say to my immediate/extended family/friends that are convinced that quackery has some kind of efficacy? ASEA, Chiropractic, homeopathy, therapeutic touch (oh…raki….ugh….). Whatever the preferred method of “CAM” happens to be. How do I get through to them?

     Or do I just do what I’ve been doing and keep my mouth shut, only offering my opinion when asked for?

494. # nybgruson 25 Jan 2013 at 10:48 am

     An interesting point and question SW.

     On the first, I tend to believe (I both like to and have evidence to) that these conversation are fruitful for the fence sitters and the rare True Believer (™) who are witnessing the conversation. I also see utility in that it is held on record for anyone in the future to examine the conversation and determine the outcome based on its merits.

     On the second, that is indeed a very good question. I tend to take a Socratic approach to it – how much trouble is it worth to me? By example, I was visiting a friend of my fiance’s over the holidays. She is not near and dear to my fiancé, but is somewhat close and she is even less close to me. She showed me a lab report she had done recently. It was from a DC and it was one of those live blood analyses with IgE and IgG testing for allergies. I know this to be utter bunkum, but I said absolutely nothing. I lamented about her difficulties with allergies and some of her health problems, offered some sound science based advice carefully without making it abut the lab report directly, and thatw as it. Afterwards my fiance asked if the report was BS because it sure smelled fishy to her. See, you don’t have to be in medicine or biology at all to pick up on that stuff. Just be intelligent and know the scientific method.

     It simply wasn’t worth my effort to try and disabuse her. For closer family members I have put in more effort, with that effort being in direct proportion to my analysis of what the potential harm is. When my mother used homeopathic drops for weight loss I told her she was wasting her money but it wouldn’t harm her and that was it. A comment in passing. I found that a year later the drops hadn’t been touched. For my fiance’s mother, I have been much more aggressive at times and devoted vastly more time and effort since she is a cancer survivor and has significant woo-ish influence from her sister. She is also in a more precarious financial position and thus the harm of wasted money alone is much more significant and, IMO, warrants more effort.

     Every time you confront someone about their bad ideas, you always run the risk of souring a relationship or losing it altogether. Just like how even minor surgery can have infection and death as complications. So I evaluate whether the risk to the relationship is worth the benefit of the confrontation. In many cases that means weighing the risk of the woo du jour against the risk to the relationship and determining the lesser of two evils. This is necessarily complex, dynamic, and subjective. Of course, a history of conversations gives some objective criteria to bank on and I make it a point that whenever I do engage in such a conversation I make it absolutely clear that I am only doing the best I possibly can to help someone I care about and that while I may be wrong, I have good reason(s) to believe I am not. And I always leave it open – the goal is truly informed consent, not to sway someone to my way of thinking. If, after being truly informed, my mother wants to continue using the homeopathy, then so be it. My goals have still been met and I can be comfortable with that fact.

495. # TracyKingon 25 Jan 2013 at 2:32 pm

     http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/219944.php

496. # nybgruson 25 Jan 2013 at 2:42 pm

     At least she is becoming more concise in citing things which do not support her claims.

497. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 25 Jan 2013 at 3:43 pm

     That’s a press release indicating that redox signalling molecules exist.

     It doesn’t support ASEA having anything to do with actual redox signaling. The only mention of ASEA is in the comments section.

     I’ve made a comment on that page clarifying these facts. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

498. # TracyKingon 25 Jan 2013 at 4:22 pm

     @ PernilleN, the composition of ASEA is 8+ and 8- (16 in total) molecules. The positive are the ROS – Reactive Oxygen Species and the negatives are the RS – Reduced Species. Because the solution is in perfect equilibrium, it is non-toxic. In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to ASEA young to old, on medication or not as it already resides in our cells. From the Patent doc http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090110749#ixzz1Lgl4zAsU, here is the list per your request:

     Hypochlorous acid (HOCl)
     Hypochlorites (OCl sup-, NaClO)
     dissolved Oxygen (O2)
     Chlorine (Cl2) between 1 – 200ppm, *O. Sup 2.Sup -, H2O
     Ozone (O3) from 1-50ppm
     Activated Hydrogen ions (H. sup – )
     Chlorine ions (Cl. sup.-)
     Hydroxides (NaOH, OH. sup.-)
     Singlet Oxygen (*O2)
     other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (OCl, HO. sup.-)

     Here is also a more scientific presentation about healing, redox signaling molecules and ASEA: http://drrobwebinar.com/

499. # Naradon 25 Jan 2013 at 6:18 pm

     In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to ASEA young to old, on medication or not as it already resides in our cells.

     Tracy still hasn’t figured out the difference between the inside and the outside of a cell, I see.

500. # nybgruson 25 Jan 2013 at 6:25 pm

     She also hasn’t figured out that the safety of it is not and never was a concern of ours. I am happy to concede without any data of any kind that small amounts of mildly salty water are generally pretty safe.

501. # Harriet Hallon 25 Jan 2013 at 6:51 pm

     While I’m trying to catch my breath, will someone with more patience than I have please try to explain to Tracy why her list of ingredients (from a solution of salt water after electrolysis) has me rolling on the floor laughing:

     Hypochlorous acid (HOCl)
     Hypochlorites (OCl sup-, NaClO)
     dissolved Oxygen (O2)
     Chlorine (Cl2) between 1 – 200ppm, *O. Sup 2.Sup -, H2O
     Ozone (O3) from 1-50ppm
     Activated Hydrogen ions (H. sup – )
     Chlorine ions (Cl. sup.-)
     Hydroxides (NaOH, OH. sup.-)
     Singlet Oxygen (*O2)
     other forms of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) (OCl, HO. sup.-)

502. # pmoranon 25 Jan 2013 at 6:59 pm

     In 17 years, there have been absolutely no adverse reaction to ASEA young to old, on medication or not as it already resides in our cells.

     Despite the free chlorine, ozone, hypochlorous acid and other noxious agents (some of which I am fairly sure are never found in our cells, by the way)?

     The only reason that this product probably is safe is that there is too little of anything left in it to affect anything much. Fortunately that is pretty certain, after it having been stored for a while, ingested, reacted with the gut and its contents, then absorbed, reacted with the protein and cells in the blood and then further diluted throughout the extracellular space. (I am sure others have pointed this out.)

     Even if there were any “signalling molecules” left it is a complete and utter toss-up as to whether the effect on cells would be beneficial or harmful.

     Those fancy diagrams and the big names look great, but they are designed to lure people who cannot see the many problems with the claims that are being made. There are many, many chemicals that will stimulate or inhibit important cellular processes, but adding more of them to the body is mostly either harmful, or it is simply compensated for by the body producing less.

503. # nybgruson 25 Jan 2013 at 7:49 pm

     will someone with more patience than I have please try to explain to Tracy why her list of ingredients (from a solution of salt water after electrolysis) has me rolling on the floor laughing

     LOL. Sure. I just rolled my eyes at it before but I think I can do it rather quickly. I even found a handy little primer. A Wiki article on it and a NASA article on it from their education and outreach department (PDF). The NASA piece states a high school grade level person devoting 90 minutes can understand the lesson.

     However, to summarize, the specific reason why salt in general is used in electrolysis is that water is a very poor conductor of electricity. Which specific salt comes down to chemical and then cost reasons. The salt used must have an anion (the negative part of the molecule) and cation (the positive part) that have the appropriate standard electrode potentials. The cation must have a lower SEP than hydrogen (H+) and the anion must have a higher SEP than hydroxide (OH-). This is because if the SEPs were reversed then the electrolysis would break up the salt rather than the water. What this means is… nothing will happen.

     The way electrolysis works is by getting all the anions to the cathode and all the cations to the anode. Then the electrons can shift around and do their fun stuff really close to the respective electrodes. If there is no salt, then the pure water will require a ridiculous amount of energy to actually split it into hydrogen and oxygen. With salt, the ions from the dissolved salt act to create an electrical balance so that electrons can jump around and split the water into H2 and O2.

     So if the cation has a higher SEP than hydrogen it will just hold on to that electron and… nothing will happen. If the anion has a lower SEP than hydroxide it will not give up the electron and… nothing will happen. Sodium chloride (NaCl, or common table salt) is used because it is cheap, dissolves readily in water, and has the appropriate SEPs. It acts, essentially, as a catalyst for the reaction – hence why you can electrolyse any amount of water without adding additional salt to the solution.

     So if something does happen, it will be the production of gaseous and electrically neutral hydrogen and oxygen. Which is really fun, especially when you recombine them back into water with a small spark

     So there really is no mechanism by which ROS or whatever else it is that Tracy claims can be produced by standard electrolysis of water using NaCl. Or really any other material since the point is that the electron transfers happen extremely rapidly (hence why ROS is reactive). This is because the moment electricity is turned off all these species that do exist right next to the electrode for brief periods of time react with one another and equilibrium is reached.

     There are systems for on-site production of NaOCl for disinfectant purposes. They are typically quite large and essentially work by making a whole boatload of gaseous hydrogen and oxygen and sweep away the NaOCl before it can completely react and be rendered nothing more than salt water again. But why anyone would want to drink NaOCl is beyond me.

     The further complication is that if all the molecular species that Tracy lists are actually present in solution, they would simply react with each other rather rapidly (I read somewhere some of these can be stable… up to one hour only though) and be nothing more than salt water again. That is why when you actually do electrolysis and then turn off the electricity you don’t actually have a solution of nasty ROS left over.

     Of course, I suppose the magic of ASEA is to somehow take all of these molecules and prevent them from returning to equilibrium somehow… which is, I suppose, hypothetically possible since we do spin-trap molecules, but not from some sort of electrolysis technique and not in a way that would magically un spin-trap them when we ingest it.

     Perhaps ASEA should start calling them “not-so-reactive oxygen species.”

     Oh yeah, and the last thing I thought of is that all these compounds actually do exist at all times in any salt water solution. The amounts are small and dictated by the respective dissociation constants (Km) of each compound and are in a dynamic equilibrium at all times. So no matter how you slice it the claim is both always right and always wrong depending on the specifics you wish to apply.

     What a trip down memory lane. Been a looooong time since I have done inorganic chemistry. I likely made a mistake or two along the way, or didn’t pick up on a nuance, but hopefully the gist is right. I can only hope that Gears will come educate me

504. # nybgruson 25 Jan 2013 at 7:50 pm

     Oh, I guess that wasn’t so brief. Sorry. It was fun to read up and remember stuff.

505. # Harriet Hallon 25 Jan 2013 at 9:26 pm

     Thanks, nybgrus. One further point: the claim that ASEA is “perfectly balanced” of course is true. If you start with a neutral substance and separate it into ions you necessarily get an equal number of positives and negatives. Duh!

506. # Naradon 25 Jan 2013 at 9:37 pm

     Tracy, could you please explain in your own words, without running for help, what you think you mean when emitting the text “O. Sup 2.Sup -”?

507. # nybgruson 25 Jan 2013 at 10:00 pm

     My pleasure Dr. Hall. It was a nice distraction from my research activities. I had to edit a section of my heart failure review and am doing a lit review for my sepsis article. I really enjoy the outcomes but sometimes have trouble getting the train started, so to speak, and a distraction is nice at times.

     And yes, that was the final point I realized as I was writing – every solution, no matter what it is or how many molecular species are in it, is always perfectly balanced. And every reaction is reversible, it is just a question of how reversible it is. Highly reactive species – ROS – are reactive precisely because they are at a higher energy state and thus less stable. Entropy dictates that they will do everything they can to return to the ground state. So either they will react and simply be salt water, or there will be something preventing that and making ASEA quite unstable and dangerous. It’s simple thermodynamics.

508. # TracyKingon 26 Jan 2013 at 12:44 am

     Perhaps this ASEA associate can give you some additional detail that will help you understand? http://biotechsecret.com/biotechsecret.pdf. Regardless, keep laughing, and by all means keep writing. I know something you don’t. I’m just so very thankful that all this is being documented for posterity. Thank you for your time.

509. # The Daveon 26 Jan 2013 at 1:03 am

     Wow! A Bachelor’s degree! Super-impressive credentials. He must know WAY more than the MD’s and RPH’s and chemists here. What, exactly, is the curriculum to earn a BS in Natural Health, and what school did he get it from?

510. # nybgruson 26 Jan 2013 at 2:25 am

     The “book” is a farce. It’s as if a middle schooler did a mock science documentary as an arts project.

     I honestly knew more science by the 8th grade than this “book” contains. And I would have known enough back then to realize it was pretty much total garbage.

511. # pmoranon 26 Jan 2013 at 3:08 am

     I meant to mention that my salt water swimming pool is kept free of algae and bugs via salt water electrolysis. There is a little 30 cm X 5 cm cell containing a bank of electrodes. Works well.

     Since some of the chlorine will be lost into the atmosphere and presumably also small and not necessarily equivalent amounts of hydrogen and oxygen I am not prepared to be dogmatic about the composition of the final solution i.e. I doubt if the water can quickly restore itself to an entirely original state.

     Neverthless its medicinal qualities remain extremely dubious.

     The obvious value of the process for Asea is that no one has thought of commercialising this quite mundane process as quackery previously.

512. # Naradon 26 Jan 2013 at 3:19 am

     I know something you don’t.

     Yah, but nobody really cares about your hat size.

513. # Naradon 26 Jan 2013 at 3:23 am

     Wow! A Bachelor’s degree! Super-impressive credentials.

     Especially when it comes from the now-defunct Clayton College of Natural Health, a diploma mill.

514. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 26 Jan 2013 at 3:44 am

     The book is dedicated to, among others, a couple of QiGong “masters” and an energy healer.

515. # Sialison 26 Jan 2013 at 10:19 am

     The book is dedicated to, among others, a couple of QiGong “masters” and an energy healer.

     Murakami makes it sound so intriguing, “If you happen to be benefiting from exotic subconscious mind technologies, you will receive great benefit from the redox signaling molecules.”

     If these signaling molecules work as TresSea describes, what association could there possibly be between “exotic subconscious mind technologies” and ASEA? I’m thinking it is simply a matter of identifying an easy target, a consumer who will most easily fall for other dubious product claims like ASEAs.

516. # TracyKingon 26 Jan 2013 at 11:13 am

     It’s not simple electrolysis, it’s a 3-day patented process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beKYeSdJ430&list=UUHo. And that’s why all the company videos call ASEA a “breakthrough” or a “discovery” or “previously thought impossible” — because it’s counter-intuitive to believe that these molecules could stay “on” after the electric current has been removed. The patents exist to protect the process not the ingredients. That’s also why they did the NMR testing to prove superoxides exist in the solution, it was a necessary step for publication.

     And Dr. Samuelson didn’t make that video, someone captured it on their iPhone from a convention and posted it to YouTube.

517. # Sialison 26 Jan 2013 at 11:22 am

     The patents exist to protect the process not the ingredients. That’s also why they did the NMR testing to prove superoxides exist in the solution, it was a necessary step for publication.

     There are NO patents for ASEA. There are patents on similar processes using various salts and water processes for commercial and other cleaning solutions, etc., all of which have been discussed above. Show us one, just one patent for ASEA. No excuses, if you can’t show us a specific patent for ASEA, then don’t bother posting a bunch of excuses.

     I am not a scientist and that’s quite obvious, but even I can see through ASEA’s bogus advertising, especially with all the help others here have put into debunking every statement you’ve made as yet.

518. # PernilleNon 26 Jan 2013 at 12:12 pm

     Tarcy, thanks a lot for your list. I’m not going to go into what it means, but you’re the first person who has actually been able to (and willing to) tell me what it really contains. And if this is true, all those who have said it’s “just Na and Cl” are clearly liars, or haven’t bothered to find out the real contents.

     But, can you also help me with the concentrations? It’s rather important – 0,5% OCl- or HCl is rather different from 5%, for example. The latter is very unhealthy, to put it mildly.

     One more question: The link to the description in patentdocs says nothing about ASEA, but I take it this is the same thing? Asea mentions a different patent, namely this one. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,674,537.PN.&OS=PN/5,674,537&RS=PN/5,674,537 (sorry, I don’t know how to change it to a shorter link). But it seems the product is more or less the same.

     Regards,
     Pernille Nylehn

519. # The Daveon 26 Jan 2013 at 12:19 pm

     Wow! A Bachelor’s degree! Super-impressive credentials.
     Especially when it comes from the now-defunct Clayton College of Natural Health, a diploma mill.

     I earned my BA in psychology from and actual accredited state school. Perhaps I should start signing everything with that after my name:

     The Dave BAP

520. # nybgruson 26 Jan 2013 at 12:28 pm

     I particularly enjoyed how the video link – besides being worthless in general – was specifically worthless in that it had asbolutely nothing to do with the claim of a novel electrolytic process but was just a montage of an absolutely standard bottling facility. Which is neat; I actually had a brief stint as an oversight manager for a similar such plant that produced fruit juices. The amount and type of quality control checks to ensure the safety of the product as well as the innovations for high throughput production were very interesting to not only see first hand but actually do. But then again I really like watching shows on mass production and production in general like “How it’s made.”

     The only evidence that video provides us is that there is enough of a market of gullible people to warrant at least one mass production of ASEA. However, don’t let that fool you too much – most of these bottling plants are actually independently owned and manufacturers of various products actually “rent” the use of the plant and simply bring their own product to the facility. The cost of this certainly means that ASEA has been making some money somehow (either sales, MLM schemes, VC money, or some combination thereof) but it doesn’t actually have to be a huge amount since a single bottling run can be done rather cheaply without recurring costs or overhead. And since ASEA is just salt water and the plastic bottles extremely cheap, the profit margin is huge and the cost of facility rental would likely be easily absorbed. There may not have even been a second bottling run, so we can’t even use the video as independent evidence that ASEA has an ongoing production.

521. # Sialison 26 Jan 2013 at 12:57 pm

     Since Barr is no longer in business, there should be no problem with Tracy posting some evidence of their offers to ASEA? Surely if Barr or Johnson and Johnson made such impressive offers to ASEA, they did so in writing? Why don’t you give us some evidence of just one of these claims, Tracy? Who exactly were those individuals at Barr that made the offers? Go back and ask your contacts at ASEA to give us some evidence of at least this these claims.

522. # Naradon 26 Jan 2013 at 3:00 pm

     I missed this when originally skimming Tracy’s mysteriously set out list of ingredients:

     Activated Hydrogen ions (H. sup – )

     That’s right, free hydride anions just sittin’ around shootin’ the breeze.

523. # nybgruson 26 Jan 2013 at 3:16 pm

     @narad:

     Excellent point. I glossed over it myself.

     Hydride anions are indeed a crazy atomic species. It is mostly found in stars and its theoretical existence wasn’t even proven till 1929 and it wasn’t even empirically proven until 1977 and is studied using particle accelerators.

     “Free hydride anions exist only under extreme conditions and are not invoked for homogeneous solution. Instead, many compounds have hydrogen centres with hydridic character”

     Yeah, very little chance that could exist in a bottle of water.

524. # Naradon 26 Jan 2013 at 4:06 pm

     Yeah, very little chance that could exist in a bottle of water.

     Unless it’s… just like homeopathy. (I don’t have access to this.)

525. # nybgruson 26 Jan 2013 at 6:39 pm

     I am sometimes impressed with the level of institutional access I have. I was able to get the full article. It is vastly more technical than I can process. However, I think one sentence sums it all up:

     However, the hydride ion is hardly present in solutions, as it reacts with most solvents except alkanes.

     This includes water. And in fact much of the paper is about exactly how it reacts with water. And the energies involves are pretty staggering. Which is why:

     The hydride ion, which is the smallest anion and a strong reducing agent as one of the strongest bases known

     That is because it rips the hydrogen off of H20 to create H2 and OH- (hydroxide, the prototypical Lewis base).

     I almost don’t want to post the next quote, since it would just give the likes of Tres Sea undeserved talking points, but it is actually interesting:

     The hydride ion formed as an intermediate is involved in biologically important reduction processes of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP+), flavin mononucleotide (FMN), and flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) (e.g., NAD++H++2 e- = NADH; FMN+2H++2 e- = FMNH2)

     Do note, please, that is an intermediate since it reacts so incredibly rapidly.

     A sample of stuff I do not understand:

     As the temperature increases from 0 to 298 K, the lowest energy structures in ΔGr for n = 4/5/6 changes the conformation from 4Y31/5Y32/6Y42 to 4R3I1/5I32/6Y32I1 due to the entropy effect (Fig. 2)

     I do not know what the conformation notation means. That is beyond the level of chemistry I ever learned.

     This seems important as well:

     The proton transfer process from the water molecule to the hydride ion is possible because of the low-energy transition barrier. The potential energy barrier from the monohydrated hydride to the dissociated OH− and detached H2 is estimated to be low [3.40, 1.79, and 4.68 kcal/mol at the B3LYP/6-311++G**, MP2/aVDZ+, and CCSD(T)/aVTZ+//CCSD(T)/aVDZ+ levels of theory, respectively], while the monohydrated hydride anion is more stable than the system comprised of the detached hydrogen-molecule and the hydroxide anion by about 3.2 and 2.8 kcal/mol at the B3LYP/6-311++G** and CCSD(T)/aVTZ+//CCSD(T)/aVDZ+ levels, respectively

     Meaning that the energy state highly favors H- + H2O –> H2 + OH- which is why it cannot exist in solution for very long. Adding additional hydration coordination states adds some stability, but not much, and most of the work (theoretical and practical) they appear to be doing in this paper is down near the zero Kelvin range.

     Lastly:

     However, the change from the excited state of hydride-water clusters to the complex of electron-water clusters with the hydrogen radical is exothermic, and the reactions are spontaneous [0.96 eV for H−(H2O)2, 1.78 eV for H−(H2O)4, and 2.47 eV for H−(H2O)6 at the MP2/aVDZ+ level]. The electron-water plus H radical system is more stable than the H−*(H2O)n system.

     So what this means is that hydride anion in water is so unstable that H* + H2O- (that is hydrogen radical with an extra electron on the water molecule) is actually the lower energy state. The “n” in ‘H-*(H2O)n’ refers to the fact that any number of stabilizing coordinated water molecules (in the paper they describe up to 6 as possible, which in and of itself is impressive for steric reasons) is still less stable than H* + H2O-. Incredible.

     So yeah, really no chance it could just exist in a bottle of water. It is an anion of interest because it is so extreme that it is difficult to study and gives us insight into the edges of physical chemistry knowledge.

526. # nybgruson 26 Jan 2013 at 6:48 pm

     Sorry, I should correct myself – the hydride anion is the Lewis base, the hydroxide is the Arrhenius base.

     Flashbacks to the end of high school and beginning of college. The last time I took inorganic chemistry was in 2002. Fun to remember all this stuff.

527. # Naradon 26 Jan 2013 at 7:10 pm

     I almost don’t want to post the next quote, since it would just give the likes of Tres Sea undeserved talking points

     Just remember, if you start hearing “clathrates” from the ASEA crowd, they got it here.

528. # Naradon 26 Jan 2013 at 8:43 pm

     I do not know what the conformation notation means.

     Oh, I’m sure it’s entirely straightforward. (These maps are actually fun to poke around in, as this is hardly the most intricate example.) But anyway, pictures! (Fig. 1; PDF)

     This stuff was an unmitigated nightmare to edit, not to mention getting it onto narrow measure (protip: do not repeat the basis set over and over.)

529. # nybgruson 27 Jan 2013 at 11:54 am

     lol. like I said, beyond the level of chemistry I did. I can understand the basic premise of what is going on and at least some of the nomenclature I am familiar with – we did, after all, do a fair bit of stereochemistry (Trey Cee, that does not mean doing chemistry with a boombox) in organic chem. But that detail of conformational nomenclature is physical chem stuff, and I never took any p-chem but had friends who were chem majors and told me it was one of the toughest courses they had to take and laughed merrily at how breezy ochem was in comparison. Personally I rather liked ochem and aced all my courses. I was, at one time, considering being a chem major but realized I liked squishy science way more and hence the evo-bio degree instead.

     I actually entered undergrad as an anthropology major since I had discovered medical anthro and thought that would be a really interesting and cool way to get to med school. Then I began to realize I really needed a science degree (and wanted one anyways) so I was going to switch. In the end I decided to just finish both degrees. At my undergrad they were very snotty about their bioscience and physical science program (having 5 Nobel Laureates as active professors gave them airs) and so when I applied to add the major, they quite literally thumbed their nose at me since I was coming from the social sciences and said flat out “Biosci is really hard and we’ll have to review your application, which may take up to a week, and there is a good chance you won’t get in.” This was before they knew anything about me except that I was an anthropology major. I had already aced a full year of ochem and physics plus integral calculus and molecular biology as a non-major. I got a call the next day apologizing and asking if I would come to their department. The lesson learned is that you never know who you may be talking to and showing humility will never make you look bad, but being haughty can most definitely backfire on you!

     Just out of curiosity Narad (if you don’t mind answering) what is your profession/occupation? Forgive me if you have mentioned it before and I have forgotten.

530. # Naradon 27 Jan 2013 at 12:06 pm

     Just out of curiosity Narad (if you don’t mind answering) what is your profession/occupation?

     Just a (currently underemployed) copy editor, journals publishing, mainly physical sciences. I was a physics undergrad, couple of years on a poorly chosen computer science Ph.D. that I didn’t finish, and then drifted into this dying racket.

531. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 27 Jan 2013 at 1:30 pm

     Perhaps this ASEA associate can give you some additional detail that will help you understand? http://biotechsecret.com/biotechsecret.pdf. Regardless, keep laughing, and by all means keep writing. I know something you don’t. I’m just so very thankful that all this is being documented for posterity. Thank you for your time.

     The credibility of qi gong practicing self-publishers is rather low here. Particularly when the self-published book contains no citations and has the FDA quack miranda warning on page 4. Still not a peer-reviewed journal indicating salt water cures cancer or whatever.

     And “knowing something you don’t” doesn’t work in science, due to the openness and transparency required for peer review, critical scrutiny and replication.

     And Dr. Samuelson didn’t make that video, someone captured it on their iPhone from a convention and posted it to YouTube.

     Oh, well then, that settles it! Because only the highest quality science can be captured on an iPhone, and the fact checkers at YouTube are famous the world-over for not allowing any inaccurate information on the site.

     Narad and nybgrus, thanks for the science lessons. I followed about 50% of it and it was still interesting

532. # PernilleNon 28 Jan 2013 at 4:32 am

     @Tracy, you say there have been absolutely no adverse reactions. How do you explain the emails people are sending me, saying they got really sick form taking ASEA? Some are “only” sick for a few days, but one of them is still ill, several weeks after he stopped taking it.
     Even retailers say that it’s normal to feel bad the first days, with nausea, headaches etc etc. I call that adverse reactions.

     Pernille Nylehn

533. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 28 Jan 2013 at 7:03 am

     I’d call that nocebo.

534. # nybgruson 28 Jan 2013 at 7:46 am

     Better than Arecibo.

535. # TracyKingon 28 Jan 2013 at 9:03 pm

     @Sialis, the patents are listed on every bottle that goes out. Multiple patents were obtained by the predecessor company, Medical Discoveries, Inc, however the ones ASEA uses going forward (that are not disease-related and therefore able to be used for promotion in the supplement market) include:

     5,507,932: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,507,932.PN.&OS=PN/5,507,932&RS=PN/5,507,932

     5,674,537: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,674,537.PN.&OS=PN/5,674,537&RS=PN/5,674,537

     6,007,686: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6007686.PN.&OS=PN/6007686&RS=PN/6007686

     6,117,285: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6117285.PN.&OS=PN/6117285&RS=PN/6117285

536. # TracyKingon 28 Jan 2013 at 9:13 pm

     @ nybgrus, I’m sorry, I gave you the wrong link, this is the one I meant to include, it’s only 1-minute but explains how it’s more than simple electrolysis: http://www.americanhealthjournal.com/medical-research-videos/asea-redox-video/.

537. # Naradon 28 Jan 2013 at 9:28 pm

     I gave you the wrong link, this is the one I meant to include, it’s only 1-minute but explains how it’s more than simple electrolysis

     Tracy, there’s insulting the intelligence of your audience, and then there’s really insulting the intelligence of your audience.

538. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 28 Jan 2013 at 9:41 pm

     Oh, look, infotainment. Like advertising, but with less integrity.

539. # Naradon 28 Jan 2013 at 9:43 pm

     I will admit, however, that the video has its moments, and as such, I would ask Tracy to explain precisely what she thinks this is intended to mean.

540. # TracyKingon 28 Jan 2013 at 11:03 pm

     @ PernilleN, according to a book called “The Science of Healing Revealed: New Insights into Redox Signaling,” written by the Atomic Medical Physicist who led the team of scientists that discovered the stabilization process, yes the compounds by themselves ARE TOXIC (he states “Strong reductants and oxidants can both be harmful and destructive to the cell if they are allowed to wander around at will.”) He goes on to explain the “redox balance” process in detail and I re-typed it in above posts but you can reference his book here: http://qwe.goforfiles.com/j5GRX2eQmlhv0aNcb5ieJS70sCZ%2BqbcsNpa4OX%2BpjTZ66pI6S7TUbRbnyyxfuoYOR7jIXgrYzVkQkI5SC9s0SgrYN0V1ww%3D%3D, or I can email you a pdf if you want to provide your email address to tracypowersking@gmail.com.

     Also ongoing redox signaling research is helping to explain the concept of “redox potential” — http://ccforum.com/content/10/1/208, and the evolution in our understanding about our bodies’ sophistication regarding the mechanisms that control these reactive molecules.

     And yes the patent you referred to is related to ASEA. You can see various safety studies that have only recently been able to be formally referenced at http://www.asea.net, which opened up the potential for any user to trace the name of the company mentioned in the safety studies, “Medical Discoveries, Inc. – Pharmaceutical” to press releases while it was a publicly traded stock. The company makes no claims related to those press releases, they only use the safety studies to confirm that the solution was thoroughly vetted as safe and non-toxic at any level.

     I am NOT a scientist and I do NOT feel qualified to comment beyond being able to reference what other independent scientists, doctors, physicists, chemists, microbiologists, etc, are providing in the way of resources to help explain this new-found availability to replenish native molecules that our body lacks as we age. I would highly recommend that you please address any further technical questions to askdrgary@asea.net, or call him directly at 801-973-7499. I did not want to represent myself as an expert, only someone who knew that the article in question did not take many factors into account, and that the writer’s bias is highly evidenced per a review of her history with network marketing products which she summarily dismisses in their entirety based on industry.

541. # TracyKingon 28 Jan 2013 at 11:10 pm

     @ PernilleN, per Dr. Robertson Ward, M.D.: Much insight can be gained by considering the taste of ASEA. We are consuming the world’s first and only, native redox molecular supplement. Not surprisingly therefore, it has many special properties, some of which are reflected in its taste. Although most people find ASEA to be mild or refreshing, others may report the taste of something like “pool water,” or chlorine. These and other tastes are sensed predominantly through olfactory lobes and not by the tongue. Taste buds on the tongue respond to just four flavors: salty, sour, bitter and sweet. Much of what we commonly think of as taste is actually smell. Redox molecules in ASEA trigger olfactory sensation to the extent that our internal chemistry is deficient in redox molecules. Some people can detect the presence of hydrogen peroxide, for example, one of sixteen redox molecules in ASEA. This “taste” is actually a smell via olfactory sensation, and may simply indicate an imbalance in our own body chemistry. As we continue to consume ASEA, our experience with it evolves. The perceived flavor shifts toward a more bland water-like quality, as we gradually lose the ability to distinguish the presence of redox molecules. This happens when redox molecules are replenished within our olfactory lobes and other tissues. Our own body chemistry begins to approximate an optimal equilibrium of eight reductant redox molecules paired with eight oxidants. On a cellular level, this is the balance of health and youth that ASEA helps us to regain.

     How ASEA is Made: ASEA is made in Utah from municipal water that is highly purified using both reverse osmosis and distillation. The pure water is then combined with pure salt and allowed to cure, before undergoing a patented process that oxidizes and reduces the saline solution into the final product. During processing most of the chloride ions are integrated into redox molecules. Sodium ions are not affected and help to maintain electrical neutrality. Hydrogen and oxygen also contribute to the formation of redox molecules, but most of the water forms a matrix of clusters around the active redox molecules and ions. This micro-clustering further contributes to the stability and electrical neutrality of the product. The final product is no longer a saline solution. It is not salt and water. It is a balanced buffet of redox molecules. The raw materials have been transformed into a new product. Ingredients: Some people ask why redox molecules are not listed as an ingredient on each bottle of ASEA. By comparison, when we look at the ingredients on a loaf of bread, we find flour, water, eggs, sugar, oil, yeast, etc. Nowhere on the list does it say “bread.” The raw ingredients have been blended and heated and forever transformed. You can no longer locate the eggs or oil that we know went into the process. It’s the same with ASEA. The beginning ingredients are salt and water. The finished product is something very different. Sodium Content: Typically, adults consume 4,000 mg of sodium daily. Restricted diets may be set to 1,500 mg. One piece of whole wheat bread contains 210 mg of sodium. ASEA contains 123 mg of sodium in 4 ounces, the standard daily allotment. Safety & Assimilation: ASEA is transparent to pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. It does not interact, interfere or conflict with anything else you are eating or taking. ASEA is not metabolized by our internal organs but is assimilated, like water, through simple diffusion. The redox molecules in ASEA, as in our cells, are composed of just four tiny atoms, or fewer, and are essentially the size of H2O.

542. # TracyKingon 28 Jan 2013 at 11:28 pm

     @ PernilleN: Per website: ASEA is proven safe to all tissues, organs, and systems of the body. It is so effective that it might increase the efficiency of certain message carriers in the body, such as hormones, insulin, adrenaline, etc. If you take anything of this type, carefully monitor yourself and make adjustments to compensate, with the aid of your doctor, if needed.

     Per instructions for use by Dr. Foster Malmed: “Some people experience a detox effect when starting ASEA. Do not be alarmed, it is perfectly normal. If you experience signs of detox, you can drink more water to flush your system quicker or cut your dose back and then resume as normal. Detoxing is a good sign!”

     Per a question posed to Dr. Samuelson regarding the detox process:

     This is a Question That I asked Dr Gary L. Samuelson, Ph.D. in Atomic/Medical Physics from the University of Utah.
     by Asea Alberta on Saturday, September 24, 2011 at 2:09pm
     Hi
     I have 3 different elderly people that are on my auto ship and after about 3 weeks or so of using ASEA they went to their doctors and got their blood pressures taken and they were slightly elevated. The doctors of course jumped all over it and told them to stop taking ASEA due to the salt. All of these people have had amazing results for the medical issues they were having. Of course the doctors have been telling them that it is only the placebo affect. I have told them the type of salt and amount it is but still their doctors seem to be getting satisfaction from trying everything they can to make them stop using ASEA. This also happened to me in the beginning and after 2 months my vitals were perfect and still are some 7 months later. Please can you help me to make them understand what is going on with their bodies? The sad part of this whole thing is that ASEA has helped them get total relief from major medical issues they were having, but it is very hard to change peoples minds about what today’s medical profession knows about how the bodyworks on a cellular level. I am 50 yrs old and feel like I am 20 now and ASEA has alleviated 23 different medical symptoms
     that I was having for many, many years. I can understand why doctors do not want to accept this technology
     as I have not been at mine for the last 8 months and I used to live at his office. HELP ?

     Dave,
     I am glad to hear about your improvement. It is generally difficult to introduce redox signaling to most medical professionals, it is a new field of science (13 years old) and change happens gradually in the medical field and requires ongoing education. To help you understand what might be happening inside the body: several measures of cellular efficiencies increase as a result of redox signaling exposure, especially in older people or people with large-scale tissue damage. The increased efficiencies may also help the cells to more efficiently clean up the “garbage” that has been building up in their cells, washing the garbage and toxins into the blood supply. This clean-up effort by the cells, at times, may cause what is termed a “detox” reaction. The kidneys, while trying to get rid of the garbage, will, at times, order an increase in blood pressure to help expel the toxins. This is a temporary condition that should not last more than a month after first taking the product consistently. The best recommendations to help someone that is going through a detox reaction is to ask them to drink plenty of water, to help flush the body, 12-16 glasses a day, for example. Be patient and if the detox symptoms get too uncomfortable, cut back, taking ½ – 1 oz 4 times a day (some just spray it in their mouths several times a day) while the cleanup process is taking place. One encouraging thought: athletes in our studies who underwent somewhat uncomfortable detox reactions at first and were patient, later had the greatest improvements later on.

     The amount of salt in ASEA is not large enough to significantly affect blood pressure. 129 mg of sodium is the same as that in three large carrots. Almost any salt-restricted diet can be adjusted to include ASEA. I hope that all goes well for you.
     -Gary

543. # Naradon 28 Jan 2013 at 11:32 pm

     The pure water is then combined with pure salt and allowed to cure

     Tracy, you really don’t understand the hole you’re digging here, do you?

544. # TracyKingon 28 Jan 2013 at 11:44 pm

     In my own experience, I have seen some people have fatigue symptoms at first, and temporary elevated blood pressure (your blood is thicker when it has more “junk” in it to get rid of, like the debris from cells that are being replaced, which is easily remedied by drinking more water or cutting back). People who have been on pharmaceutical drugs for decades do seem to have some initial swelling in their joints which I attribute to the body’s flushing of residual toxins too fast for the kidneys to process so it flows back into the lymph nodes temporarily. Some people even experience a temporary rash since the skin is also a way for toxins to be released from the body. I have never seen a serious detox reaction, all just minor (like diarrhea) and all completely explainable if you research “healing crisis,” and I might add, rare (in my experience with many users, it’s usually people with a history of a non-methylating liver or people who have extreme sensitivities to caffeine and most pharmaceuticals and OTC medicines, etc.). For whatever reason, ASEA tastes the worst to the people who need it the most (especially the obese), but the taste does change over time, and I find people tend to like it refrigerated at first, but then later prefer it at room temperature. I can tell if I’m coming down with a cold because the ASEA tastes different to me, sometimes very chlorine-like, sometimes metal-like or just “flat.” I know to drink more on those days to boost my immune system. I also have benefited greatly from spraying it up my nose like a saline spray for clogged sinuses and nebulizing with it if I have chest congestion, as well as dropping it into my eyes as you would natural saline. Perhaps this is the truest test that ASEA is more than simple “salt water” since direct contact in your eye with salt water would be stinging but ASEA is very soothing to delicate membranes like the nasal passages and eyes/lids. My children also nebulize with it during allergy season and it is immediately beneficial without a doubt. I am very thankful to have found ASEA.

545. # Naradon 28 Jan 2013 at 11:46 pm

     I have never seen a serious detox reaction, all just minor (like diarrhea) and all completely explainable if you research “healing crisis,”

     Holy cats, now it’s Herxing.

     I find people tend to like it refrigerated at first, but then later prefer it at room temperature.

     Tracy, who in G-d’s name do you think you’re talking to?

546. # TracyKingon 29 Jan 2013 at 12:12 am

     @ nybgrus, thank you for your time and for the additional research, I appreciate that you are indeed intellectually curious. You will find some humor in this brand new video which is, by far, my most favorite to date: http://www.7minutes.biz. I know your time is valuable but just watch minute 3, he recounts that scientists slap their hands on the table because they are so disbelieving that redox molecules can be captured and stabilized for more than a few minutes. I went to a lecture by Dr. Samuelson and it sounded like to me that the secret lies in being able to envelop the individual redox molecules inside H2O molecules but again, I have no idea, nor at this point, any interest since I am able to confirm the existence of these molecules through observing my own results, as well as countless others, who previously had no relief through traditional means. I will send Dr. Samuelson your observations and report back to you if he has any insights to share (that would not endanger our intellectual property obviously).

     To whomever asked it, at minute 4:15 of http://www.7minutes.biz, the pharmaceutical company offer is discussed and documented at length publicly (in fact they made a movie called “The Genesis” about it), without mentioning the name of the company, which is understandable to me. The company need not be named and indeed, it was probably an exclusive one-time silent secret non-public offer to protect the pharmaceutical company from being associated with a network marketing company or admitting that there is something that exists that might actually do some good (I have my own personal beefs with big pharma because of what my mom has been through as an Alzheimer’s patient). Complete speculation but it would not surprise me if pharmaceutical companies are continuing to make offers since it is common knowledge among ASEA users, that some pharmaceutical drugs actually work BETTER when taken with ASEA, it would make sense that they would like to gain exclusivity to its use, thereby increasing the market share of their drug.

     @ PernilleN, one last comment on detoxing… IF a patient is on a drug, read the “side effects” and “cautions” for that drug and see if it doesn’t match the patient’s symptoms since (in my experience) often it is not a “detoxing” AT ALL but rather a side effect of an overdose of medication that is no longer needed (particularly synthroid, again maybe it’s just a coincidence but this has been my personal observation with the limited number of users I have seen who have “adverse” initial reactions). In particular, notice if the patient has not been on the drug in question for very long. Incidentally, high blood pressure is an often cited side effect for MANY medications, and furthermore, many “symptoms” do not immediately disappear at the start of most new medications… I remind new ASEA users to be patient, have realistic expectations, and to commit to the product for a minimum of 90 days to observe the subtle improvements in their health or gradual lack of ill health.

547. # Naradon 29 Jan 2013 at 12:20 am

     I went to a lecture by Dr. Samuelson and it sounded like to me that the secret lies in being able to envelop the individual redox molecules inside H2O molecules

     Tracy, did you miss the part where this has already come up?

548. # nybgruson 29 Jan 2013 at 12:23 am

     lol. You should try digging up!

     I’m not going to waste my time further with this ridiculousness. Narad’s screencap was great though. And the “correct” video was nearly as hilarious as the first. Absolutely no evidence of anything.

     And do note, that I commented on that pchem paper that indeed, these things can be stabilized by water in coordination states, but that this is a miniscule effect.

     Sorry Tray See but still no dice. And I’m not expecting to see any either.

549. # TracyKingon 29 Jan 2013 at 12:26 am

     @ Narad, can you appreciate the dilemma of needing to appeal to a “general public” who is not knowledgeable in complex biophysics but who still needs understandable answers? Hence the reason for the book, “The Science of Healing Revealed,” which is meant to appeal to those who need a more technical explanation? Let me email it to you. Think about needing to explain this concept to a populace who overwhelmingly lack even a basic understanding of chemistry… if you get too technical then people will dismiss it as something they can’t understand. A blurb on a PBS show, “American Health Journal” does not have an audience of Ph.D.’s, therefore it is somewhat excusable that the language is more for mass media marketing and not meant to educate scientists.

550. # Naradon 29 Jan 2013 at 12:34 am

     Narad, can you appreciate the dilemma of needing to appeal to a “general public” who is not knowledgeable in complex biophysics but who still needs understandable answers?

     Tracy, the trick here is that you can’t explain anything coherently to an audience rather narrower than the general public, so that’s out. Now, please explain to me what you think that video still is supposed to represent.

551. # TracyKingon 29 Jan 2013 at 12:57 am

     That the company acknowledges the incredulousness of being able to stabilize a fleeting solution like this… however, they took it to “a group of university scientists” who confirmed that it DOES INDEED CONTAIN WHAT THEY SAY IT DOES. That the leadership has “Fortune 10″ CEO experience, never before seen in this industry. That the product works. That a “very big pharmaceutical company in New Jersey (about $10-11 billion dollars)” who were privy to ALL the research that you and I don’t have access to DID make an offer after only about 6 hours of negotiation. That this product is NOT salt water, it’s not going away, we have opened 10 countries and we are expanding.

552. # nybgruson 29 Jan 2013 at 1:09 am

     That the company acknowledges the incredulousness of being able to stabilize a fleeting solution like this… however, they took it to “a group of university scientists” who confirmed that it DOES INDEED CONTAIN WHAT THEY SAY IT DOES

     I just read and commented on an article Narad posted up about the stabilization of the hydride ion. That was a peer reviewed, solid science paper. Why on earth does the same thing not exist for ASEA, if the “group of university scientists” confirmed it was there? To confirm it, they would have had to do what the paper Narad linked to did! They would have had to actually do the work to prove it is there, which means the data would exist, which means there is absolutely no reason there isn’t a paper on it.

     You can’t just get a group of people, university scientists or not, and have them just look at the damned bottle and agree it contains anything!

     Sorry Tracy, but there is absolutely no possible way this is legit.*

     *to within experimental error and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

553. # Naradon 29 Jan 2013 at 1:25 am

     we have opened 10 countries and we are expanding

     With nothing but absurdities in your pocket. ASEA makes baby Jesus sad, Tracy.

554. # BillyJoeon 29 Jan 2013 at 5:50 am

     “the Heisenberg uncertainty principle”
     The more those scientists examine the solution, the less they believe it contains what it says it does.

555. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 29 Jan 2013 at 6:22 am

     Wow, that is a truly impressive amount of handwaving nonsense. By using the terms “detox” and “healing crisis”, you’ve certainly shown your ability to learn from homeopathy, a field with which you share comparable scientific backing and respectability.

     Your use of “boost the immune system” has allowed me to win at quackery bingo by the way. I also would have won with “Big Pharma just wants to make money”, “lets the body heal itself” and “deals with the cause of a problem, not just the symptoms”.

     Tracy, you sell very expensive salt water. There is no reason to believe it is anything else. Technobabble from An Atomic Scientist is not any more impressive than technobabble from Star Trek.

     Is it someone’s job at ASEA to post as many videos as they can on as many websites as they can? You keep linking to new, equally worthless videos on new sites, it’s astonishing. Imagine what your company could have accomplished if they put their marketing efforts into real research, it would be amazing! Obviously not research on ASEA, but on real science.

     I’m so unsurprised ASEA contains what it says, considering it says it is salt water.

     QUANTUM! NOW MY CARD IS FULL!!!

     I feel like I’m being trolled by RusticHealthy.

556. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 29 Jan 2013 at 6:41 am

     I’ve thought of an analogy. Tracy, do you think that Peter Pan is real? He is, and here’s my evidence:

     There were dozens of books about him:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Books_-_fiction –

     And comic books:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Comics

     And scholarly books:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Books_-_non-fiction

     And many plays:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Stage

     There were movies about him (lots actually):
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Film

     TV shows:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#TV

     Video games:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Video_games

     Documentaries:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Biographical_dramas

     Radio shows, Russian and English:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Radio

     Now clearly, by your standards of documentation and research, you must believe that Peter Pan is real, right? With dozens of books, films, plays and sundry, isn’t that ample evidence that Peter Pan is a real, flying boy? And oddly hairless as an adult.

557. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 29 Jan 2013 at 6:47 am

     As an exercise for the skeptics, it might be instructive to list all the indications of quackery we’re seeing here. We’ve got:

     - Big Pharma conspiracy
     - quantum nonsense
     - healing crises
     - improbable claims and improbable mechanisms
     - scientists making claims outside their specialties
     - claims published by non-peer reviewed outlets (youtube!)
     - irrelevant tangent scientific articles cited as if relevant
     - FDA-approved quack miranda warning
     - claiming it is “too important to wait for proof”
     - omnipotence (the ability to cure any and all diseases)
     - “just try it”
     - arrogant claimants
     - demands that we disprove it’s efficacy

     I’m sure there’s more, that’s just from the past couple days.

558. # The Daveon 29 Jan 2013 at 10:30 am

     “As an exercise for the skeptics, it might be instructive to list all the indications of quackery we’re seeing here. We’ve got:”

     -”Detox effects”
     -100% safe, no side effects

     The Dave BAP

559. # TracyKingon 31 Jan 2013 at 1:09 pm

     I would probably be completely inclined to agree with all of you IF I “had not seen it with my own eyes!” I know the “quoters” will have fun with that jewel but if you could just SEE what I’ve seen, and if you could just FEEL it in your own body, then you would be a LOT more curious and open! Thanks for your time. This is a new science webinar I haven’t show you before, it’s by the founder’s son, it’s particularly compelling (to ME anyway) at minute 18, and 23 and 27. http://apps.attainresponse.com/MediaF5/liveRecording.htm?id=264478

560. # nybgruson 31 Jan 2013 at 1:42 pm

     “seen it with my own eyes” is a fundamental human cognitive error that we here have expounded upon over and over again.

     Unless you are willing to convert to Islam because of how an Imam FEELS Allah and because he has “seen it with his own eyes” then you should recognize how incredibly trite and trivial that line of argumentation is.

561. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 31 Jan 2013 at 2:00 pm

     So far everything that Tracy has found “compelling” has come directly from people selling this stuff!

     As if people with vested financial interests have never lied to sell their product. How do we even know that meeting with an anonymous “multi-billion dollar” pharmaceutical company ever took place? Because the two head shills for the company say so in a video? We’re supposed to believe that like we’re supposed to believe the phony science and fake claims. Because they say so.

     I wonder if Tracy believes everything she sees on TV in commercials too. Or expects everyone else to.

     I will say this company does spend a hell of a lot of money on video presentations, computer animation and colourful graphics. If you don’t have any facts, dazzle ‘em with graphics!

562. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 31 Jan 2013 at 2:07 pm

     And those scientists who were “banging their fists on the table”? I don’t believe a word of it.

563. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 31 Jan 2013 at 2:21 pm

     So Tracey, have you kept careful track of everybody who has tried ASEA and found it unhelpful? Have you taken a group of say, 10 people, given 5 of them ASEA and 5 of them regular salt water and carefully tracked whose symptoms improved and by how much?

     It is very easy to remember who got better (particularly if it is dramatic) and forget those who got worse or did not change. Science is the counter-intuitive task of consistently and carefully keeping track of these things. Your statements are indistinguishable from the hucksters who sold snake oil in the Old West, and just as invalid.

     Also note that “just try it” is number 11 on my list.

564. # The Daveon 31 Jan 2013 at 2:27 pm

     if you could just FEEL it in your own body

     I HAVE felt salt water in my own body. Here are the results:

     I use saline in my eyes every morning and every night for my contacts. If its balanced right, it feels fine. If not, it burns!

     I’ve been to the beach and ingested sea water. The saltiness is not a very pleasing taste

     Salt water in an open wound? OUCH!

     Oh, almost forgot the IV saline for minor surgical procedures. Didn’t feel any different from the systemic salt water.

     Am I forgetting any?

565. # JJ Borgmanon 31 Jan 2013 at 2:53 pm

     Tracy,

     You should arrange for ASEA to provide substantial samples to some of the writers here. Let them use the product without the exorbitant cost to “feel” the results for themselves. Rock their worlds and you’ll have all the anecdotal evidence you could possibly need to sell this stuff. Nobody here is going to believe your claims on your poor evidence and certainly not on their dime. Let ASEA bear the cost for this experiment.

     Surely, that’s much less expensive than clinical trials, right? I’m willing to bet they’d be willing to participate.

     B…u…t, if they’re not really that confident, ummm…you know what I’m saying.

566. # nybgruson 31 Jan 2013 at 2:59 pm

     So as a former competitive cyclist who is currently trying to find time to get back into shape, if I actually bought and paid for some ASEA and found it did absolutely nothing to my performance (which I can and have measured quite rigorously in the past) would that be enough to convince you that it really is bunkum, Tracy?

567. # Harriet Hallon 31 Jan 2013 at 3:17 pm

     @nybgrus,

     Nothing, but nothing, is going to convince Tracy. But if enough people tried it, found it didn’t help them, and sued the company in a class action suit for false advertising, that just might accomplish something.

568. # Sialison 31 Jan 2013 at 3:46 pm

     Tracy,

     You should arrange for ASEA to provide substantial samples to some of the writers here.

     I second that, Tracy. When I tried to get a sample of ASEA, I was told it would cost $30. That’s a lot of money for just one sample. Send us some samples, Tracy.

569. # pmoranon 31 Jan 2013 at 4:17 pm

     I know the “quoters” will have fun with that jewel but if you could just SEE what I’ve seen, and if you could just FEEL it in your own body, then you would be a LOT more curious and open!

     And some here doubt the existence of placebo responses.

     (This is directed at a long-running dispute on these pages, not at you, Tracy. Placebo responses can be utterly convincing, quite indistinguishable from true therapeutic effects, especially to those experiencing them. You are merely reacting as millions of us have done before.)

570. # Sialison 31 Jan 2013 at 4:37 pm

     @pmoran, you are twisting people’s words and misrepresenting what they’ve stated in the past. I’ve been reading this blog long enough to see for myself that you are doing that. WTF?!

571. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 31 Jan 2013 at 4:41 pm

     I would doubt any of the editors or regular commentors doubt the placebo effects. I think most of the disputes are about how meaningful, powerful, lasting or ethical it is – in particular, whether it is worth eroding patient’s understanding of science by lying to them about the source of their improrvements for what appears to be a questionable, over-reported and transitory symptom reductions.

572. # Sialison 31 Jan 2013 at 4:52 pm

     @WLU, As I see it, it also erodes the reliability of the patient’s reporting of their symptoms to their other physicians. When people don’t understand that the effect is due to placebo response, yet hear the patients reporting temporary improvement from treatments that are known to be relatively useless aside from the placebo effect, the physicians might be inclined to further question the reliability of the patients’ reporting of their other symptoms. It muddies the validity of the reporting of symptoms and treatment effectiveness.

573. # pmoranon 31 Jan 2013 at 6:02 pm

     Oh, Sialis, you have to be joking!

     Mark Crislip:
     They do not mention that all of the above have no basis in reality and none have benefit for any objective findings and barely have any effect for the subjective endpoint of pain and that the entire subjective effect of acupuncture can be accounted entirely by bias on the part of the patient and the practitioner.

     Rarely does placebo get a mention here in any way that does not dismiss it as something that we need not bother our pretty little heads with (outside of clinical studies).

     Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.

     Also, once you accept that placebo responses exist at all, you have to deal with the fact that we can have no idea how strong they can be under very favorable conditions.

     We look at our studies and interpret them a certain way (which somewhat disturbingly happens to suit our other objectives and inclinations), when this may be one instance when we should be taking more note of the stories of patients. They are the basic subunit, the core subject matter for any consideration of CAM. Medicine is about nothing other than how it affects the user. So, those stories may not always be trustworthy; they most certainly are not, but it may be unwise for several reasons to assume that by default in all possible settings. Who else knows better how a person truly feels?

     But I did not wish to start another round of argument. I was pointing out that being too dismissive of the placebo overlooks some telling material, such as Tracy’s statement of how she and others feel affter using Asea water, and undoubted placebo. My present interest in placebo is purely as an aid to understanding CAM, why people use it, and what they might get out of it. This should interest everyone else here more, in my view.

574. # pmoranon 31 Jan 2013 at 6:33 pm

     –an undoubted placebo — not “and”.

575. # nybgruson 31 Jan 2013 at 6:41 pm

     pmoran:

     You keep touting this 0.5 effect size. I have yet to see literature to demonstrate that is a valid statement.

     From an article in the journal Pain

     Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche’s (2001) meta-analysis primarily included clinical analgesia trial studies and found a mean and range of effect sizes (m=0.27, −1.13 to 1.07) similar to that found in our analysis of clinical analgesia trials (m=0.15, −0.95 to 0.57).

     On the other hand, placebo analgesia effects were much larger, in a range from −0.64 to +2.29, in studies of placebo analgesia where subjects were told that they would receive an analgesic treatment.

     A few placebo studies investigating different placebo effects within similar settings and using similar placebo agents have shown that the same placebo agent can give rise to different magnitudes of placebo analgesia. These differences depend on manipulations that change subjects’ expectations

     So in other words it is very largely a belief expectation effect, rather than anything to do with the actual ritual, medication or placebo. If you get the patient to believe you pain will be better managed. I have argued exactly this for a long time. In fact that paper goes on to say:

     A more satisfying mechanistic explanation of the placebo effect is that the perception and the expectation of the placebo agent as a powerful painkiller may trigger opioid mediated descending controls to reduce the afferent processing of pain at early levels. Such a mechanism would result not only in reduced pain intensities but also in reduced pathophysiological consequences of pain that are processed at brainstem, hypothalamic, and cerebral cortical levels (Price and Soerensen, 2002). Thus, placebo analgesia may well have a real therapeutic effect and the biological and psychological mechanisms of placebo analgesia have the potential to be investigated to a far higher degree than they are today…For example, by interfacing a known efficacious treatment with a suggestion stating that “the agent you have just been given is known to significantly reduce pain in some patients”, the subjects’ expectations toward the treatment are likely to be enhanced. This is likely to increase the magnitude of the placebo analgesic effect and thereby the total level of analgesia. As this suggestion can refer to a statement of a true fact, it need not be inherently deceptive and it could be ethically justifiable. The potential utilization of this type of placebo suggestion as well as other types of suggestion need to be investigated in future studies.

     Quite consistent with what I have been saying all along and indeed the authorship here (ok, maybe Dr. Crislip takes a harder line but in general they all agree that subjective pain experiences can be modulated by placebo).

     However, the data is still muddy and in cases where the intent was not to trial placebo analgesia by using real analgesia we find that 0.5 effect size to be the upper limit of what is seen.

     When looking at placebo in general, such as for example in The therapeutic effect of clinical trials: understanding placebo response rates in clinical trials – A secondary analysis the authors note that placebo and treatment responses correlate highly (r=0.79). This indicates that there is a large proprotion of the total effect that is placebo (the paper assumes everything we here have possibly construed as placebo as “non specific effects” and that this plus specific effects = total effect size). So this means roughly 80% of the total effect size is “non-specific effects.”

     This high correlation should not come as a surprise, as in clinical trials a certain basic effect, thought to be covered by the placebo control group, is compared with this same basic effect plus some specific element of pharmacologic intervention. That is, effects in clinical trials are bound to be correlated. Indeed, if there were no intervention effects at all we would have a perfect correlation of r = 1.0. The fact that the correlation is not perfect is a sign that treatment and control groups behave differently. The fact that the correlation is so high and in fact explains 60% of the variance is a sign that the commonalities of factors in groups within trials is greater than their difference. In other words, non-specific treatment effects are more important than the specific ones. Thus we have once more corroborated a now growing body of evidence about the importance of non-specific treatment effects

     However, the paper goes on further to do multiple regression analysis and determines that:

     What is important from a differential point of view is, whether these non-specific elements of treatments, or the variability of responses in the placebo groups, can be further elucidated. Our regression analysis shows that a series of formal characteristics is responsible for this variability of therapeutic responses in placebo groups. The fact that this analysis can explain nearly 80% of the variance is a support for the hypothesis that a large part of those non-specific effects in randomised placebo controlled trials is due to formal characteristics

     Formal characteristics are defined as:

     Formal characteristics were coded: (1) disease treated (ICD-10 diagnosis according to the first and second level); (2) duration of study; (3) is it a multi-center study (4) attrition rate (number of drop-outs in each group); (5) is the statistical evaluation of the study results done according to intent-to-treat analysis; (6) rating of study quality; (7) ‘improvement’ = response rate with placebo and medical treatment in a manner similar to [18] (i.e. % patients improved according to main outcome parameter mentioned in the study), or alternatively, in prevention trials, the number of patients (%) without event (e.g., cardiac) or worsening of the condition being under investigation (e.g., dementia);

     In other words, 80% of the effect size of placebo is explained by things that are not inherently actually doing anything for the patient but are artifacts of the study itself.

     So sure, in some contrived cases we can see large effect sizes from placebo – but only for pain. And the data show us that it is expectation that mediates the vast majority of that effect and as such, can change quite ephemerally the moment the patient decides not to trust us for any given reason, valid or not.

     SO once again, the placebo effect does indeed have biological and physiological activity. However, it does not modulate objective outcomes, subjective outcomes are ephemeral, and even then there is serious question as to how big the effect size actually is especially in light of the example above where 80% of the effect size is explained by things having nothing to do with the actual treatment or of the placebo.

576. # pmoranon 31 Jan 2013 at 7:51 pm

     for example — http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22965186

     Also, Nybrus, look for “standardised mean differences” — which are not always referred to as “effect sizes”.

577. # Sialison 31 Jan 2013 at 8:05 pm

     Oh, Sialis, you have to be joking!

     No, and what nybgrus said.

578. # nybgruson 31 Jan 2013 at 8:15 pm

     I will admit that this seems more robust than most reviews on the topic. However, up to 80% of that effect size is explained by anything but the actual physiological responses of placebo to the therapeutic ritual as per the paper I cited above. In fact, if you look more into that paper you will see that the regression analysis they did demonstrates these sorts of studies reviewd in your analysis to be the most explainable as study artifacts.

     And once again this is only for chronic pain. Which I have expounded on the reasons for this many times before. Do you have any good data showing similar effect sizes for anything else? Because, as I have stated before, I am unimpressed with the use of acupuncture for chronic pain – that does not, as I have argued, provide any evidence that the acupuncture itself or the ritual associated with it is uniquely beneficial for pain.

579. # TracyKingon 31 Jan 2013 at 8:34 pm

     R u kidding? That would be awesome, absolutely!!! Just send me your addresses (doesn’t have to be yours if you want to still be anonymous about it, put a work address or something but they won’t deliver to a P.O. box), whomever is willing to be objective: tracypowersking@gmail.com. And, if luck is on my side, you will BURN yourself (accidentally of course, and not seriously) at least once in the 30 day trial, or hopefully at least nick yourself shaving or get a paper-cut, and then you can test out that PLACEBO EFFECT! I could list some other things but I don’t want to be accused of making claims, be creative (children and pets included).

     And please call my friend Cindy, 859-227-8189, and ask about her son’s lead and mercury toxicity levels that were tracked regularly from age 6 to 16, the glutathione connection, the BEFORE ASEA and AFTER ASEA brain biopsies and myelin sheath damage testing performed by Johns Hopkins Hospital (#1 in Neurology in the U.S. for the last 3 years). She made a YouTube video about it so I’m not the one making a claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iHjsiRCn20. She LOVES to talk about the placebo effect (typically as high as 40% right?), knows all about it! She’s expecting your call anytime, Eastern Time Zone.

580. # pmoranon 31 Jan 2013 at 9:16 pm

     My last comment for now, as I wished to make just the one small point above.

     Nybgrus, I am sure you will have noted that the study you refer to also says this, which seems to quite strongly support what I am saying —

     We conclude that the placebo response rate in controlled clinical trials is not due to methodological artifacts, to disease history alone or to circumstantial characteristics of studies, but seems to reflect a genuine improvement, unless one invokes publication bias for all negative studies. This improvement accounts for roughly 60% of the variance of all therapeutic gains across trials.

     In any case, I am not phased by the “it’s only a small effect” argument. Firstly, CAM testimonials often suggest a very strong placebo response, and we have experimental evidence supporting the notion that these responses will vary greatly depending upon a number of factors to do with both the individual and the entire therapeutic environment, even if the average effect under the usual study conditions is relatively small

     Secondly, who is to be the judge of that? Those effects sizes themselves are highly arbitrary judgements, merely attempts to reach some way of judging “clinical relevance”. Two or three fewer migraines or tension headaches per year, at inconvenient times socially or occupationally, may be a worthwhile benefit to some. Small short-term relief from otherwise relentless symptoms might also be enough to jolt some out of an illness rut.

581. # Naradon 31 Jan 2013 at 10:17 pm

     And please call my friend Cindy, 859-227-8189, and ask about her son’s lead and mercury toxicity levels

     Oh, great, you’ve got a nutty antivaccine ASEA associate as well.

     12 million people die world wide annually due to side effects of medicine of that 700,000 die annually in the US due to side effects from medicine. Death caused by over the counter and prescription medication is ten times greater that caused by illegal drugs. In the United States 783,936 people die every year because of mistakes made by conventional medicine. “Pharmakeia” is the name of a power of darkness rooted amongst mankind since ancient Egypt. Its the spirit of sorcery, witchcraft and occultism,which arose from that empire. The Greek word Pharmakeia, is translated as sorcery and magic in our Bibles. From its root. “Pharmakon” which means poison, drug, medication, come the words pharmacy, pharmaceuticals, drug, and drug addiction. “Pharmakos” is also the word used for sorcerer, or warlock. Dr. Stephen Marini, PHD, DC Immunologist and microbiologist spoke at the 4th International Vaccination Public Conference, various doctors gave their opinion about the perils of the H1N1 vaccine. “Vaccines are not what is recommended for your children. Today, there exist better methods of treating the infirmities these are hoping to prevent. Some of the side effects are asthma, allergies and autism” Dr. Warren Levin, member of a physicians committee: “One of the reasons why I am here is to talk about the toxic aspect of vaccines.” Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, Pediatrician and member of the American Board of Pediatricians: ” What I learned in medical school concerning vaccines is not consistent nor effective. As a number of vaccines have increased, we have also seen an increase in chronic illnesses in children.” “The Medical Mafia” by Dr. Lanctot Dr. Lanctot writes about the horrors arising from the vaccines: “In a drastic manner, vaccines decimate the population in third world countries and chronically in the industrialized ones. To this regard, Robert McMara, the ex-President of the World Bank, former Secretary of State of the United States who ordered the massive bombarding of Vietnam and member of the expansive Immunization Program, made some shocking statements. They were denounced in a French publication named “L’ai tout compris,” Here is what he said: “We must take Draconian measures in regards to the reduction of the population against the will of the people. It has been proven that reducing the birth rate is not working, or it is not enough, therefore we must increase the mortality rate. How? Through natural causes such as “famine and disease.”

     Seriously, she’s quoting the stark raving mad “Madame Ghis”?

582. # Harriet Hallon 01 Feb 2013 at 1:19 am

     @Tracy,

     Just as a hypothetical, what would happen if I took ASEA for 30 days and saw absolutely no kind of improvement, or even felt worse? Would you stop believing in it? No? Then why would you imagine that if I felt better I would become a believer?

583. # Naradon 01 Feb 2013 at 1:42 am

     Would you stop believing in it? No?

     Given that she’s convinced herself, per her truly depressing Twitter feed, that Mitt Romney uses ASEA, that she herself is “part of history,” and that “U will live SIGNIFICANTLY longer if drink ASEA,” which I’m pretty sure the FTC would frown upon, I’m guessing “no.”

584. # nybgruson 01 Feb 2013 at 9:04 am

     Actually it rather more supports what I am saying -

     I have said it over and over again. There is a “real” placebo effect. It is just small and – here’s the key part – ephemeral and relies on the patient believing you. Which can, in cases like acupuncture, only be achieved through some form of deception. Hence why the article also specifically states that “talking up” an actual therapeutic modality to heighten expectancy and placebo effects presents an ethically justifiable way of using placebo. In other words – exactly what I have been saying from day 1.

     So yes, I have said that “placebo response rate in controlled clinical trials is not due to methodological artifacts, to disease history alone or to circumstantial characteristics of studies, but seems to reflect a genuine improvement.” You conveniently ignore that. You also ignore all the data showing that it is of small effect size, ephemeral, and generally not clinically relevant. You even now say “Those effects sizes themselves are highly arbitrary judgements,” to hand wave it away. First you keep going on and on about how impressive the effect sizes are and that justifies the utility of it because, hey even if it isn’t quite ethical the effect size is so big we can’t just ignore it. Now… it’s highly arbitrary. Oh, and anecdotes from CAM use make it seem profound too! Stop being ludicrous. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You know anecdotes from CAM use are worthless… unless you think we should seriously consider MMS or Burzynski because hey, they’ve got some killer anecdotes. And you can’t use the big effect size to justify pushing an ethically dubious (at best!) modality and then handwave it away as “highly arbitrary” when I demonstrate, yet again, that most of that effect size is artifact. That’s highly duplicitous, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.

     But hey, at least you are starting to admit it is, on average, quite small. Even though that seems to “not phase you” since you’ve already concluded it is worth pursuing.

     And yes, I absolutely agree that even a small effect can be quite significant to an individual patient. But that cannot justify any sort of endorsement of an otherwise completely placebo therapy with its own intrinsic risks and the rest of the baggage that comes with it. This is not Dr. Oz’s medicine where it is all a religion and you have your facts and I have mine and people can do whatever because it doesn’t matter.

585. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 01 Feb 2013 at 9:24 am

     Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.

     We appear to part on this matter. You seem to be implying that deceptive or fake medicine (SCAMs) are worth pursuing because of their sometimes potent but unreliable placebo effects. I think that is a terrible idea. Instead, a meaningful and worthwhile effort for real medicine is the attempt to honestly deliver medicine and services in ways that are placebo-enhancing. You seem to be OK with lying to patients and hoping they get better. I would not want that in a doctor.

     Also, once you accept that placebo responses exist at all, you have to deal with the fact that we can have no idea how strong they can be under very favorable conditions

     Sure, placebo effects may have very favourable effects on symptoms, which is why they should be enhanced whenever possible – while undertaking treatments that improve the underlying condition. Which SCAMs do not. The relationship to real and alternative medicine is tremendously asymetrical – the best real medicine can learn from SCAMs is how to reclaim placebo effects that were lost when doctors started being honest rather than patronizing and paternalistic with patients. SCAMs meanwhile, have to learn biology, chemistry, physcis, research methods, ethics, logic and their limitations (the latter being their complete inability to genuinely treat anything).

     @Tracey

     u kidding? That would be awesome, absolutely!!! Just send me your addresses (doesn’t have to be yours if you want to still be anonymous about it, put a work address or something but they won’t deliver to a P.O. box), whomever is willing to be objective: tracypowersking@gmail.com. And, if luck is on my side, you will BURN yourself (accidentally of course, and not seriously) at least once in the 30 day trial, or hopefully at least nick yourself shaving or get a paper-cut, and then you can test out that PLACEBO EFFECT! I could list some other things but I don’t want to be accused of making claims, be creative (children and pets included).

     Why on earth is it incumbent on us to do this testing for you? Why don’t you, or your corporate masters, do this testing? Spend two days reading a basic book on research methodologies. Or, hell and blood, watch Mythbusters. If you and your bosses were genuinely confident about ASEA’s magical abilities, you should be rushing to empirical testing. If the effects are as powerful as you claim, they will be easy to demonstrate. Your steps are this:

     Mix some salt water with the same concentration as ASEA.
     Get someone to put them in indistinguishable containers labeled “A” and “B”, and record which is salt water versus which is ASEA. Don’t watch them do this, and don’t talk to them until the end of the trial.
     Get 10 people, ideally with some condition ASEA claims it can treat (none, of course, just vague structure-function and FDA-quack miranda warning nonsense, but it’s better if you can get people with the same condition and even minor cuts would work).
     5 get water from container A, 5 from container B.
     Give each group the same instructions.
     Get someone to carefully and objectively as possible track their symptoms.
     Figure out which group appears to have improved more.
     Ask the “someone” in step 2 which bottle was salt water, and which was magical salt water.

     It’s not hard, and all you have to lose is your income.

586. # pmoranon 01 Feb 2013 at 5:13 pm

     “Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.”

     We appear to part on this matter. You seem to be implying that deceptive or fake medicine (SCAMs) are worth pursuing because of their sometimes potent but unreliable placebo effects. I think that is a terrible idea. Instead, a meaningful and worthwhile effort for real medicine is the attempt to honestly deliver medicine and services in ways that are placebo-enhancing. You seem to be OK with lying to patients and hoping they get better. I would not want that in a doctor.

     That is a unfair, and not typical of you WLU, especially after I have just said elsewhere that I don’t forsee any need for conventional medical practice to change — also, just now —

     My present interest in placebo is purely as an aid to understanding CAM, why people use it, and what they might get out of it.

     Also lying to a patient about the probable effectiveness of a pharmaceutical if one of the complex placebos of CAM can perform as well or even better and with fewer side effects in controlled studies has dubious moral superiority.

     There are already studies suggesting that this will be so in certain populations and certain conditions. Are we, through our dismissiveness of any relevance of placebo and non-specific influences* for CAM, even if less so for the mainstream, and our acceptance of overly simplistic “it doesn’t work” pronouncements, leaving ourselves with nowhere to go if, as I think is very likely, we now see a flurry of such studies?

     Remember a lot of people believe acupuncture-based programs work, somehow or other. They are not going to sit quietly by and accept what this blog says about it.

     What will be your response to such studies?

587. # pmoranon 01 Feb 2013 at 5:16 pm

     Formatting fixed — “Yet, WLU, the above comment of Mark’s is blithely disposing of effect sizes commonly in the 0.5 range (over waiting list or usual care). Within the clutter of influences contributing to that there is plenty of room for worthwhile placebo influences.”

     We appear to part on this matter. You seem to be implying that deceptive or fake medicine (SCAMs) are worth pursuing because of their sometimes potent but unreliable placebo effects. I think that is a terrible idea. Instead, a meaningful and worthwhile effort for real medicine is the attempt to honestly deliver medicine and services in ways that are placebo-enhancing. You seem to be OK with lying to patients and hoping they get better. I would not want that in a doctor.

     That is unfair, and not typical of you WLU, especially after I have just said elsewhere that I don’t forsee any need for conventional medical practice to change — also, just now —

     My present interest in placebo is purely as an aid to understanding CAM, why people use it, and what they might get out of it.

     Also lying to a patient about the probable effectiveness of a pharmaceutical if one of the complex placebos of CAM can perform as well or even better and with fewer side effects in controlled studies has dubious moral superiority.

     There are already studies suggesting that this will be so in certain populations and certain conditions. Are we, through our dismissiveness of any relevance of placebo and non-specific influences* for CAM, even if less so for the mainstream, and our acceptance of overly simplistic “it doesn’t work” pronouncements, leaving ourselves with nowhere to go if, as I think is very likely, we now see a flurry of such studies?

     Remember a lot of people believe acupuncture-based programs work, somehow or other. They are not going to sit quietly by and accept what this blog says about it.

     What will be your response to such studies?

588. # eNOSon 04 Feb 2013 at 12:18 pm

     At his point I’m starting to wonder if Tracey’s spamming of these worthless videos isn’t part of some marketing quota her ASEA overlords require for all their minions. Although I wouldn’t imagine this would fit their “target market” very well…

589. # Harriet Hallon 04 Feb 2013 at 12:42 pm

     I think Tracy really believes these videos are so convincing that if we will just watch them we will be converted. She doesn’t begin to understand what is wrong with them.

590. # TracyKingon 06 Feb 2013 at 2:14 pm

     @WLU, really? As if that would prove anything at all to anyone? I think the tests done to date by MDI-P, and all the worldwide universities and independent labs, and the Human Performance Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus by the VP of the ACSM, the published abstract and press releases, the patents, the Hippocrates Health Institute’s year-long double-blind study, the independent review by Road Bike Action magazine by their regular monthly product reviewer, the testing by Dr. James Clagett and WADA, the animal safety studies, etc, and all the different equipment tests like mass spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, electron spin resonance, NMR, and standardized testing regarding safety, efficacy, reactive molecules verification, etc, are far beyond your suggested recommendation for elementary 3rd grade level testing. I sincerely am taken aback at your lack of sophistication for what has already been performed, it’s as if you think they are “playing around” – this is a multi-million dollar venture already underway, it’s much farther along than you must realize given your extremely short-sighted comments.

     @ Harriet, videos? Seriously? Company videos is ALL I’m using to initiate discussions with you and your ilk? I’m not “convinced” by videos, I’ve obviously done much more due diligence beyond watching videos. That’s laughable and an insult given the amount of communication and information shared to date. I guess you are of the mind that if you say something enough times then it will be true? I tried earnestly to have frank and open discussions with you but it was rebuked repeatedly and disparagingly.

     I will re-post when there is a published study in a mid-tier journal — scheduled for the 2nd quarter of this year. No matter what it is, one thing is certain, you will find fault with it. Your past experience and evaluation of network marketing products, in general, is obviously skewing your ability to even make room for the possibility that there is anything of ANY value here. I can understand skepticism but pessimism is a wasted sentiment for which I have no tolerance. Do more homework, make some calls, other countries/governments/organizations are performing their own testing with phenomenal results. Change doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a long, hard-won process, and there will be winners and losers, consequences for action and inaction. I’m up for the challenge, thanks for giving me some clarity, it’s been fun. May each of you have all the success that you deserve.

591. # WilliamLawrenceUtridgeon 09 Feb 2013 at 5:11 pm

     @WLU, really? As if that would prove anything at all to anyone? I think the tests done to date by MDI-P, and all the worldwide universities and independent labs, and the Human Performance Laboratory on the North Carolina Research Campus by the VP of the ACSM, the published abstract and press releases, the patents, the Hippocrates Health Institute’s year-long double-blind study, the independent review by Road Bike Action magazine by their regular monthly product reviewer, the testing by Dr. James Clagett and WADA, the animal safety studies, etc, and all the different equipment tests like mass spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, electron spin resonance, NMR, and standardized testing regarding safety, efficacy, reactive molecules verification, etc, are far beyond your suggested recommendation for elementary 3rd grade level testing. I sincerely am taken aback at your lack of sophistication for what has already been performed, it’s as if you think they are “playing around” – this is a multi-million dollar venture already underway, it’s much farther along than you must realize given your extremely short-sighted comments.

     Actually Tracy, yes, that would prove something. I am also missing one final step – publish in a peer-reviewed journal. The lack of all those steps is why nobody here gives your claims any credibility. I have described, in brief, one of the two trials you would need to do to get FDA approval (though you’d probably need more patients in each group, or perhaps not depending on how significant the result). THAT is why all your other nonsense is worthless. Your youtube videos, your press releases, your unsubstantiated claims, your animal safety studies, your magazine articles, your in vitro testing – all are missing one or more of the crucial steps I listed above. They lack blinding, they lack randomization, they are not in human subjects, or they are not published in a meaningful outlet. All of those steps are necessary to make medical claims. Getting FDA approval, proving a product works is deliberately difficult so quacks and scam artists can’t release damaging or worthless products. The fact that you mock them means you don’t understand them – each step is undertaken for a reason. Read Snake Oil Science for a basic understanding of why each one is important, Bausell does an excellent job of explaining the necessities of a clinical trial for the layperson. Testing salt water in a multi-million dollar machine does no indicate effectiveness in humans. A single person testing a product without a placebo does not indicate effectiveness in humans. Animal testing does not indicate effectiveness in humans. What I am describing is indeed unsophisticated, but is more accurately described as fundamental. Each step is a link in a chain, and if any link fails, the chain does not serve its purpose. In fields like this, extraordinarily simple tests can be extremely revealing. Do you know who Emily Rosa is? You should find out, it would be illuminating.

     @ Harriet, videos? Seriously? Company videos is ALL I’m using to initiate discussions with you and your ilk? I’m not “convinced” by videos, I’ve obviously done much more due diligence beyond watching videos.

     And like so many of your assertions, you show no evidence.

     I guess you are of the mind that if you say something enough times then it will be true?

     I’m not usually one to quote the Bible, but Matthew 7:5 just blew milk out of its nose.

     I tried earnestly to have frank and open discussions with you but it was rebuked repeatedly and disparagingly.

     Yes, because you have repeatedly posted empty assertions, failed to provide any meaningful evidence, had this pointed out to you repeatedly and just kept on going. How many times do we have to say “we want peer reviewed evidence, not youtube videos and press releases” before you will stop providing youtube videos and press releases and start providing journal citations?

     I will re-post when there is a published study in a mid-tier journal — scheduled for the 2nd quarter of this year. No matter what it is, one thing is certain, you will find fault with it. Your past experience and evaluation of network marketing products, in general, is obviously skewing your ability to even make room for the possibility that there is anything of ANY value here.

     Almost certainly fault will be found, for two reasons:
     1) No study can definitively prove a point, it always builds on a body of literature and will have flaws that preclude conclusion; the scientific literature is meant to be taken as a whole.
     2) There is considerable evidence that ASEA’s parent company is trying to snow both their own representatives and the general public through empty social media, half-truths, unconvincing or unverifiable claims, startling claims, assertions that ASEA is “too important” to test, claims that contradict basic science, the quack miranda warning and doubtless others.

     But at least we’ll have something to talk about. Incidentally, when does the company’s fiscal year start? You originally said April I believe, which is second quarter if the FY starts in January.

     I can understand skepticism but pessimism is a wasted sentiment for which I have no tolerance.

     We are skeptical of your claims, and pessimistic of your ability to understand why.

     You are free to leave by the way, but that might interfere with your relentless efforts to promote your magic salt water. Up to you, I know you have an income to defend. Not to mention the horrible embarrassment of having to admit how much money, time and effort you have wasted. But I will still recommend you read this article as someone who realized their error and undertook some genuine education.

     Do more homework, make some calls, other countries/governments/organizations are performing their own testing with phenomenal results.

     But I’m sure there is some spurious reason they can’t release the results, or can’t publish them in a peer reviewed journal. I look forward, with amusement, to hearing it.

     Change doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a long, hard-won process, and there will be winners and losers, consequences for action and inaction. I’m up for the challenge, thanks for giving me some clarity, it’s been fun. May each of you have all the success that you deserve.

     Agreed, change does not happen overnight. Which is why it is so curious you think that we should change our minds about your extraordinary claims on such shoddy evidence. I mean, it’s not like we’re refusing to assess your assertions or hiding our reasoning. We’ve pointed out why your evidence doesn’t support ASEA being a miracle treatment. Yet somehow you fail to grasp our reasoning. I suggest reading up on some of the basics CAM skepticism. I’ve already mentioned Snake Oil Science, but Trick or Treatment is another good one, as is Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science.

592. # PernilleNon 09 Feb 2013 at 5:58 pm

     Tracy, I’d like a sample, but I live in Norway. Can you convince one of the Norwegian distributors to give me a bottle? I’ve asked several of them, but no luck so far.

     I hope those of you who live in US take up on her offer and try it, and post their reports here. And send off a little to a lab to have it independently tested.

     Pernille Nylehn

593. # Naradon 09 Feb 2013 at 8:46 pm

     independent review by Road Bike Action magazine

     I sincerely am taken aback at your lack of sophistication

     This is one of the occasions upon which I wish I still had neighbors who routinely smoke grass.

594. # Chrison 10 Feb 2013 at 12:25 am

     Hasn’t this article past the sixty day comment period? Isn’t it time to shut this down, and let Tres Sea find another place to ply her salt water wares?

595. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 10 Feb 2013 at 12:53 am

     Who needs ASEA?! Michael Shermer has found something even better: Starfire Water!

     http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/02/04/still-getting-hosed-starfire-water/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+skepticblog%2FcxSs+%28Skepticblog%29

     Make sure you go to the company website and look at the pictures of all the celebrities holding bottles of the stuff. I bet Tracy would trade one of her three kids to get that kind of exposure for her salt water.

     One of the comments on Shermer’s blog said at only $1.99 a bottle it’s way too cheap for real woo.

596. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 10 Feb 2013 at 12:59 am

     Starfire Water:

     “Legend has it that the mystical “Starfire”was the liquid manna of the divine, used by the ancients for ultra-focus, extreme performance, and even enlightenment. In that vein, we introduce STARFIRE WATER, a propiratary (sic) alkaline performance, bio-holographic “living” water produced using breakthrough 21st century, quantum water technology.

     STARFIRE WATER is treated with ultraviolet, ozonation,infra-red stimulation and electromagnetism for a negative (-) ion charged water, as in nature, allowing deep cellular intake through your aquaporins, the floodgates to hydration.Vortex induced, using a solar -helix and pyramid-grid system. to give it a hexagonal structure, and infused with monatomic elements, we are able to achieve a water with cosmic healing energy.

     This water is amplified with psionic wave oscillation tuned to the Universe’s frequency, helping to synchronize you with the heartbeat of our Earth. STARFIRE WATER is treated with Sacred Sound Resonance Transmission to vibrationally transform you on the deepest molecular level. Altogether we’ve created the world’s first premium alkaline . performance, “living,”” hexagonal super-structured water.”

     Structured Water – Water is naturally structured, but water from the tap is not and neither is most water sold in the store. Unstructured water goes right through you, while structured water removes toxins from your body.

     Energized Water – Even structured water on the market, isn’t energized. When you taste our water, you’ll feel a tingle on the roof of the mouth. That’s the energized water. It gives you energy for life.

     Infused Water – Most water is just water. But we infuse our water with Etherium, a trace form of liquid gold, known to facilitate higher awareness.

     http://starfirewater.myshopify.com/

597. # PernilleNon 10 Feb 2013 at 5:36 am

     Tracy, when I confront other proponents of Asea with your list of ingredients, they say it isn’t true, and that it must come from someone who don’t know what they’re talking about. However, when I ask themwhat it really contains, they repeat the “16 redox signaling molecules in salt water”.
     I find more reason to believe in what you say, you seem to have looked into this properly, unlike most of the distributors, who just believe everything the Asea company says. And since Asea say their products is protected by the patent for MDI-P and other similar patents, it all makes sense.

     But, do you have any official statement from Asea confirming that the product contains what you say? I think that’s the only things that may convince them.

     Regards
     Pernille Nylehn

598. # PernilleNon 10 Feb 2013 at 7:04 am

     I just read rather a lot of the “information” on http://starfirewater.myshopify.com/pages/about-us. Now my brain is melting and seeping out from my ears. Heeeeelp!

599. # Marc Stephens Is Insaneon 10 Feb 2013 at 3:59 pm

     Tracy’s water has salt but Starfire water has GOLD!

     When Michael Shermer first posted the Starfire information almost everybody was convinced it was an elaborate hoax, maybe planted by some scientists or chemistry students to see just how supid people could be to believe their wild claims. Alas and alack, no, Starfire water is real.

     At $1.99 a bottle it’s cheap enough that people that might actually buy it. Celebrities are, by and large, gullible and susceptible to woo (look how many talk about their “detox” regimes on TV talk shows.) The Starfire people were smart. Based in Los Angeles, they went to public events and handed out cases of the stuff. I’m sure for some of the people in the photos, it was their first and last encounter with the water.

     Of course $1.99 a bottle for tap water is an outrageous price.

600. # TracyKingon 10 Feb 2013 at 4:11 pm

     @ PernilleN: I know your equivalent of our FDA there in Norway is doing their own independent testing, give them a call and inquire and report back here! I know people who have done that, they WILL answer your questions. Norway is actually an aggressive area for growth so I’m sure there are plenty of reputable people you could talk to there about results in particular. Samples are at the expense of distributors so I’m not surprised that people don’t just give it away. In my experience, it doesn’t help anyway, if people don’t want it to work, they won’t take it properly or regularly, and they attribute improvements to something else, etc. There’s a money-back guarantee here in the U.S. so there’s literally nothing to lose here, no risk, and 80% see positive results. Just have to set the right expectation so people don’t think it’ll cure all that ails them in one drink… despite my best efforts, that’s all these people keep reading into it, maybe they get confused since they are probably commenting on a multiple of scam products I guess, that’s all I can figure. And Lord knows, the scams ARE out there, I see them too! So it’s no wonder there’s such resistance, that’s fine, this isn’t a race, we’ll have the clinical results the laggards need eventually. The difference with this is that it’s patentable, the mushrooms and berries are not, plus those types of supplements are not NATIVE to the body, therefore people can see negative results and have drug interactions. ASEA is for MAINTAINING health though cellular repair and replace mechanisms, if people see “miracles” from that, it’s just their own body’s healing processes at work. It’s their body operating at greater cellular efficiency… like it did when it was younger, when it was faster to heal/respond. Results are more tangible and more obvious for some people vs. others which is the reason for the claims-making parade by some well-meaning people — which leads to the skepticism by the masses — which leads to unrealistic expectations when someone tries it and it doesn’t make them Superman… totally all expected, normal, ordinary hurdles considering the company just launched in Sept 2010 and considering redox biochemistry is a fairly new field (although cell signaling did win a Nobel last year!). Education is arduous, that’s why forums like this are so useful, and that’s why this product is being sold through word-of-mouth advertising vs. shelving it at Rite-Aid. It’s not easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

     Regarding my “time” wasted… some people like to play raquetball, some people like to quilt, I guess I like to talk about big ideas that could impact the world, and learn, and try to understand both sides. I thought it was helpful to ME to see that it’s not ASEA at all that keeps them from believing, they have no “smoking gun,” they just have their own belief systems about placebos, MLM, the lack of value in abstracts, the need for disease-related clinical trials… they are still caught up in “treatment mode” vs. “prevention mode.” I don’t expect this blog to be money-making for me, it’s funny someone would even think that. I just wanted to shake the bushes and see if anybody had anything “real” or of ANY value with which to argue — you know, something SCIENCE-BASED (lol!!!), they obviously DO NOT. Just their own paranoia at play, fascinating to get a bird’s eye view of it… I think I’ll be quicker now to recognize it in my prospects and be able to walk away, no amount of “proof” is ever going to be enough to convince a person like Harriet. None. Ever. And she will NEVER admit to being wrong, so it’s better to not let people get worked up to the point where there has to be a winner and a loser like what’s happened here. It’s just a shame she can influence so many since she has an international forum here, but I have faith that the people who are curious will keep questioning and will find the answers they seek. It’s too important. And people will believe their own sister or mother, and as more and more people all around the world become a front-seat witness to what ASEA can do, they won’t need Harriet’s stamp of approval. One thing I know FOR SURE, we will never get it.

     Per Dr. Samuelson regarding listing the ingredients: “I certainly can empathize with you. However, listing out the molecules without adequate explanation often creates more confusion than not. The components are known in scientific literature as reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reduced species (RS), they are produced by NADPH complexes and MPO in the cell. Ruma Banerjee’s book “Redox Biochemistry” is an excellent reference and lists the major ones and what they do in biological systems in her first two chapters. No there are no nitrogen compounds in ASEA. I wish you the best. As a side note, I have gone into great detail with scientists before and most will be interested but will require clinical studies. I often end up giving them product to sample. Many of these have seen the benefits first hand and are convinced not by the science alone, but by the results in their own bodies… go figure.”

601. # PernilleNon 10 Feb 2013 at 5:53 pm

     @Tracy King says: “80% see positive results. Just have to set the right expectation so people don’t think it’ll cure all that ails them in one drink… ”

     80% is good enough … if you can prove it. I’m sure you can, you wouldn’t just take that kind of numbers ut of the air, would you?

     Looking forward to your documentation.

     Pernille Nylehn

602. # Harriet Hallon 10 Feb 2013 at 6:18 pm

     @Tracy,

     “no amount of “proof” is ever going to be enough to convince a person like Harriet.”

     Nonsense! I just ask for the same kind of evidence I would require of any scientific claim. I don’t have a double standard.

     Your tune is changing. First you said you would gladly send us samples to try, and if we took it we would be convinced of its benefits. Now you say people shouldn’t be expected to give it away. And you say it wouldn’t do any good for us to try it for ourselves because it only works if people want it to work.

     As for scientists who “are convinced not by the science alone, but by the results in their own bodies” – if that is all it takes to convince them, they do not understand the many ways people can come to believe an ineffective treatment works and they do not deserve the name of scientist.

603. # Naradon 10 Feb 2013 at 7:40 pm

     I know your equivalent of our FDA there in Norway is doing their own independent testing, give them a call and inquire and report back here! I know people who have done that, they WILL answer your questions.

     Provide a phone number, Tracy.